Flood of migrants overwhelm Australia's borders

[helicart]

And where does that money go? Right back into the economy, increasing demand and creating jobs. Its not like they ship it to offshore bank accounts - or invest it in shares that plummet and destroy value, where it effectively disappears altogether

You need to read up on
-remittance economies
-the Hazara of Afghanistan.
-Lebanese residents of Australia and remittances to Lebanon.
- lebanese who acquire citizenship in Australia then go back to Lebanon.


I know people who teach English to refugees, and within 12 months just about all of their students - husband and wives - have jobs (not CEO of Telstra or anything like that but they are working). The main thing they want to do after they get settled is master the lingo before they go off to work. From personal observation, these guys dont seem to be bludgers, they want to provide for their families and take advantage of the good life they can make for themselves here.


Read my earlier quote of official ABS stats in the unemployment rate amongst migrants....don't rely solely on your anecdotes.


Bigger population = bigger economy = richer and more diverse culture = closer relationships with other countries = more tourism and exports = more jobs and money for everyone = happy little capitalists on ASF. A much bigger population is what we need, and as the locals seem to have lost interest in breeding we need immigrants. Its either that or raise tax on birth control and drop it on alcohol.

Really???? then why are the UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, and France all cutting back on migrant intake????

 

[doctorj]

Really???? then why are the UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, and France all cutting back on migrant intake????

The UK etc are cutting back on migrants because it's good come election time. People like to blame someone else for their problems, it's easy to paint migrants as the bad guys when more people lose their jobs.

That said, I agree with your point on remittances. Mexico, Philippines and even countries like Poland all rely to some degree on remittances to fund their economy. That's not to say they send all their money home, but it does make up to 60% of some countries' GDP. It also gives these countries access to valuable foreign currencies which helps their banking systems etc.

On a net-net basis, migration from these countries is probably good for everyone. Countries like Australia get access to highly skilled people they wouldn't otherwise get, the migrants are able to provide food and housing for their families back home and these countries that have a net brain drain get a more stable currency, a more flexible banking system, a more skilled/experienced diaspora and a chance at a better life. Would countries like Mexico or the Philippines stop their educated young people leaving if they could? I very much doubt it.

 

[So_Cynical]

I was thinking about the Sri lankan's that arrived in WA a few weeks ago, and how it was
a pretty impressive trip...5000 Kilometers non stop, across open ocean, with no significant
land masses along the route.

I wonder if they even had a GPS?...the boat in the photo looks to be powered by engine
only...wonder how much fuel they had left, and how much fuel they had when they first
set off?

All in all a pretty ballsy thing to do...Not at all like the Afghan's that pretty much get a
package deal from the people smugglers....can people that buy seats on commercial
airliners really be called refugees.

 

[helicart]

The UK etc are cutting back on migrants because it's good come election time. People like to blame someone else for their problems, it's easy to paint migrants as the bad guys when more people lose their jobs.

I'll stick with the explanation by this OECD paper about the Denmark experience.


That said, I agree with your point on remittances. Mexico, Philippines and even countries like Poland all rely to some degree on remittances to fund their economy. That's not to say they send all their money home, but it does make up to 60% of some countries' GDP. It also gives these countries access to valuable foreign currencies which helps their banking systems etc.

Yes, US remittances to Mexico are Mexico's 2nd highest source of foreign income after oil....

On a net-net basis, migration from these countries is probably good for everyone. Countries like Australia get access to highly skilled people they wouldn't otherwise get, the migrants are able to provide food and housing for their families back home and these countries that have a net brain drain get a more stable currency, a more flexible banking system, a more skilled/experienced diaspora and a chance at a better life.

I don't see how a brain drain from a developing nation can be beneficial to that country..... I think you're taking a long shot. Ultimately, developing nations would be better off with the educated driving politics and economic development, rather than abandoning control to military thugs and the criminal element (Mexican drug lords).

South Korea is doing very well because the educated didn't flee it in droves. In fact, they have become a source of employment for foreign labor. The speed with which South Korea has modernized itself disproves so much of the West's paternalist attitude towards developing nations.

One could easily argue Western paternalism and enticement of skilled labor from developing nations hold these nations back from the natural struggle towards democracy and a more just society. What would have happened if Mahatma Gandhi had chosen the comfort of staying in England and practising law?

The highly skilled labor Australia prefers comes from the UK, Canada, Europe, and Sth Africa. Skilled labor from developing nations generally do not have their qualifications recognised and have to repeat their whole degree, or accept work in stations beneath their preference, making them unhappy. I have worked with enough of them.


Would countries like Mexico or the Philippines stop their educated young people leaving if they could? I very much doubt it.

Of course not, because to emulate South Korea requires commitment, drive, determination, and an educated elite who stay home and organize affairs and inspire the nation. The easy path is to take the easy money....remittances..

imho, much of the problem of developing nations is overpopulation and a lack of vigour to emulate what successful free market democracies do....China and Taiwan, and more recently Vietnam, have shown what happens when developing nations do take the bull by the horns in their own country.

For the west to just keep skimming the elites out of the developing world, and letting the cause of overpopulation run unchecked, does more damage than good.

 

[helicart]

I was thinking about the Sri lankan's that arrived in WA a few weeks ago, and how it was
a pretty impressive trip...5000 Kilometers non stop, across open ocean, with no significant
land masses along the route.

I wonder if they even had a GPS?...the boat in the photo looks to be powered by engine
only...wonder how much fuel they had left, and how much fuel they had when they first
set off?


Well, you have to run their story through a plausibility filter first.

All in all a pretty ballsy thing to do...Not at all like the Afghan's that pretty much get a
package deal from the people smugglers....can people that buy seats on commercial
airliners really be called refugees.

And it puts another spin on things when you consider the trip from Indonesia to Australia alone costs over 30 years of median Afghan wages...now how does a poor repressed Afghani get his hands on that sort of mulah???? I suppose remittances from Hazara communities in Australia is just way too far out of the question..........

 

[So_Cynical]

Well, you have to run their story through a plausibility filter first. :

Barrow Island is a long way south, 1500 kms south of Xmas Island...and all
the boats occupants were Sri Lankan, no Indo crew.

 

[helicart]

Barrow Island is a long way south, 1500 kms south of Xmas Island...and all
the boats occupants were Sri Lankan, no Indo crew.

it was considerate of the 32 Sri Lankan male occupants to not take their wives and children on the ride.........which sort of puts a big hole in how much of a threat exits back home.

 

[Beenjammin]

You need to read up on
-remittance economies
-the Hazara of Afghanistan.
-Lebanese residents of Australia and remittances to Lebanon.
- lebanese who acquire citizenship in Australia then go back to Lebanon.

Take out rent, food, clothing, toiletries, transport, electricity, gas, water, phone bills, and medical costs from $406 for two people for a week and work out how much of whats left over would go overseas. Looks like you need someone with a job to send spare money back home.

Read my earlier quote of official ABS stats in the unemployment rate amongst migrants....don't rely solely on your anecdotes.

I did - and it supports what I said. They have trouble getting work because becuase they don't speak English, but once that is conquered a lot of them can find jobs. Others, as you have pointed out, may not have suitable qualifications and have to do retraining. Ill reiterate, they dont decide to become a refugee in Australia for a bludge. They are humanitarian refugees looking for a better life, not backpacker bogans who want to sit on the couch and pull bongs all day. Its not that easy moving to a new country, new culture, new language, and 18 months to find work with only basic language skills is hardly surprising. Don't rely only on the statistics to tell the story, get out into the community and get an opinion of your own.

Really???? then why are the UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, and France all cutting back on migrant intake????

They already have larger economies than ours. They have much denser populations than us. Once we get our economy as large as theirs, we could start looking at cutting back too.

Oh and with South Korea - to be as successful as they are you have to add to the mix a totalitarian government who only looks sane because their nothern neighbor is such a complete basket case. You need to read up on
National Security Law
Sex Trafficking and Organised Crime
Systematic Abuse of Migrant Workers
Government sanctioned Police Brutality against human rights protesters

They're not the worst in the world but they leave a lot to be desired. Strong economic growth is useless if the rights of individuals suffer in the name of progress.

 

[helicart]

Take out rent, food, clothing, toiletries, transport, electricity, gas, water, phone bills, and medical costs from $406 for two people for a week and work out how much of whats left over would go overseas. Looks like you need someone with a job to send spare money back home.

not necessarily.....10-20 welfare recipients could finance 2-5 asylum seekers.


I did - and it supports what I said. They have trouble getting work because becuase they don't speak English, but once that is conquered a lot of them can find jobs. Others, as you have pointed out, may not have suitable qualifications and have to do retraining. Ill reiterate, they dont decide to become a refugee in Australia for a bludge. They are humanitarian refugees looking for a better life, not backpacker bogans who want to sit on the couch and pull bongs all day. Its not that easy moving to a new country, new culture, new language, and 18 months to find work with only basic language skills is hardly surprising. Don't rely only on the statistics to tell the story, get out into the community and get an opinion of your own.

Believe it or not, I am not only talking from the stats and literature, but from 25 years of experience with migrants. I mentioned earlier my partner's first husband was a migrant, who died in an industrial accident. I've spent a lot of time doing business with the Lebanese community around Haberfield, Burwood, Strathfield in Sydney in the 80s, and am kept informed on what is happening there by Lebanese friends. I have many Italian and Greek friends.

I now live in Brisbane and follow Buddhist teachings, and mix with Vietnamese and Chinese migrants every week. The reason I have strong views is because I do know what is going on, the good and the bad....but there's too many deluded left wing PC idealists who try and throttle the debate on how to best engineer migration...because they start shouting racist racist.....


They already have larger economies than ours. They have much denser populations than us. Once we get our economy as large as theirs, we could start looking at cutting back too.

That's a rederob fallacy....why do we need to get our economy as big as China's or India's and will we sustain the current std of living if we do double our population? Why do you think Australia's endogenous birth rate is not enough to sustain the population, if the std of lving is so great here?

I've been making the point in this thread that despite our resouces, our welfare economy does not give a good return on investment. Therefore we have to borrow capital from overseas to operate our farms and mines and what is left of our manufacturing. Please apply yourself to a deeper understanding of micro and macro economics, and where Australia sits....... Just as Rudd and Swan had a steep learning curve when they got into power, and had to renege on most of their election platform, so must most with a left wing bent. Reading about how to redistribute wealth does not teach you how to create it.....


Oh and with South Korea - to be as successful as they are you have to add to the mix a totalitarian government who only looks sane because their nothern neighbor is such a complete basket case. You need to read up on
National Security Law
Sex Trafficking and Organised Crime
Systematic Abuse of Migrant Workers
Government sanctioned Police Brutality against human rights protesters

Australia has all that too....so why encourage migrants to come here then?


They're not the worst in the world but they leave a lot to be desired. Strong economic growth is useless if the rights of individuals suffer in the name of progress.

................................

 

[rederob]

................................That's a rederob fallacy....why do we need to get our economy as big as China's or India's and will we sustain the current std of living if we do double our population? Why do you think Australia's endogenous birth rate is not enough to sustain the population, if the std of lving is so great here?

I've been making the point in this thread that despite our resouces, our welfare economy does not give a good return on investment. Therefore we have to borrow capital from overseas to operate our farms and mines and what is left of our manufacturing. Please apply yourself to a deeper understanding of micro and macro economics, and where Australia sits....... Just as Rudd and Swan had a steep learning curve when they got into power, and had to renege on most of their election platform, so must most with a left wing bent. Reading about how to redistribute wealth does not teach you how to create it.....

In this thread neither you nor your colleagues have found an error in my posts that can be substantiated.
The rebuttals are fearmongering, clumsy, confused ramblings that degenerate into labels and name calling.
You say, above, that we are a welfare economy, yet borrow from overseas to prop up our private sector. Then you implore us to read more about economics.
Your logic processes are a delight.

Just a little point for you to ponder. That great bastion of the free market, America, owes its economic strength to massive migration programs last century. Your ilk would have us believe that this was not possible or, at least, not sustainable.

I rather like the proof of the pudding.

 

[helicart]

In this thread neither you nor your colleagues have found an error in my posts that can be substantiated.

You are hardly the most impartial judge of that now are you Chairman...

The rebuttals are fearmongering, clumsy, confused ramblings that degenerate into labels and name calling.

Oh stop throwing stones Chairman, you initiate the smug slights and scornful spear throwing of the morally superior and self righteous socialist more than any poor unsuspecting schoolbie who disagrees with you....in fact, others have told me of your long and unwaivering reputation on ASF for doing so.

You say, above, that we are a welfare economy, yet borrow from overseas to prop up our private sector. Then you implore us to read more about economics.

hahahhaa.....you just keep revealing what a dabbling desultory dilettante in matters economic you are Chairman.... welfare has to be paid for somehow ...and the higher the welfare, the more likely foreign funds are required to meet capital costs.......because welfare is a revenue negative affair Chairman..... what is spent cushioning the unproductive cannot be simultaneously allocated to the capital costs of the means of production...

there really is no free lunch......


Your logic processes are a delight.

I wish I could reciprocate about your understanding of economics. But a spade is a spade is a spade....no matter what spin you apply.

Just a little point for you to ponder. That great bastion of the free market, America, owes its economic strength to massive migration programs last century. Your ilk would have us believe that this was not possible or, at least, not sustainable.

Schoolboy bunk and fluff Chairman.....
Next you will be saying the economies of Japan, South Korea, and Norway were migraton driven and sustained...

The US had a birth rate that could have built their population endogenously from the 50s onwards....until flower power, self obsession, and a breakdown in more conservative values led to the moral excesses of the me generation, and a drop in that rate.

The US in the last 30 years has got fat and lazy, that is all.....a little like Gen XY in all developing nations, they want to sit their considerable bottoms at computers all day rather than apply themselves with vigor to more demanding tasks.......and due to the poor std of living, the caucasian birth rate in the US is tanking just like ours.

Yes Chairman, that is right....the lower birth rate of caucasians in developed nations is a result of a poorer std of living....the stress of job insecurity, dual income families out of need not choice, indebted to the eyeballs from school, high cost of housing, poor infrastructure, higher health care costs, lack of security in retirement etc etc....and this is your idea of wealth....if this is what the US's migration policy has delivered, then God Save us Mrs Davis....

One need look no further than California to see the absurdity and naivety of your Anaheim Disney fantasy world Chairman......if migration and cheap labor were and are the great driver of free markets and wealth creation, then how do you reconcile that with their balance sheet???

To your twisted distorted logic, California has 'benefited' more than any other state from Mexican migration....so where's the economic miracle.....

brouhahahhaa, hell yeah, in ya face, and double BOOYA ....

If the US's underclasses were not so culturally and morally depraved, and overrepresented in prison, there'd be enough healthy vigorous domestic labor to go around, rather than relying on imported drones who benefit the lazier elites by lowering the minimum wage.

And let's be frank here Chairman....the US won't tell ya so, but one of the big reasons they encourage the drones into the country is to provide cannon fodder in Iraq and Afghanistan....that's right Chairman, underclasses and migrants are overrepresented on the frontline....who would have thought.....and they thought they were coming to the land of milk and honey, only to be shot at in an underdeveloped hell realm worse than where they came from....damn and damnation....sold the dream and outfoxed again...

Anyway, getting back to Australia....if gen xyz were brought up with more backbone and appreciation for education, rather than being supported by the state to stay home, play computer games, and eat fast food, then we'd have a more skilled workforce...and would not require one of the highest rates of population growth of any developing nation......

incidentally Chairman, just how much has the Australian std of living increased in the last 30 years? Surely you must know this off the top of your head seeing it is your mainstay of migrant benefit.

I rather like the proof of the pudding.

I have seen the limits of your knowledge and the blinkers of your socialist religiosity Chairman.......there's no sense in me appealing to reason and fact for an intellectually undisciplined zealot like you.....

Enjoy your delusion while it lasts Chairman....even as I write, Rudd is forced to bow before reality and surrender his ideologue delusions....

if you were right, then Rudd should be increasing migration to increase employment and gdp per capita and less reliance on foreign investment and sale of assets.......he should not be bailing out banks according to you, because you think they have enough money in Australia to rollover and refi liabilities....

But Chairman, you are not right.....just as guys of your ilk never are.....like Bob Hawke who vowed from his ivory pedestal,

"BY 1990, NO AUSTRALIAN CHILD SHALL BE LIVING IN POVERTY"

He lived to regret it..and he was a fool for saying it.....as you will live to regret your faith in fantasy Chairman....or otherwise remain a fool...

I shall let unfolding events vindicate my words....

 

[helicart]

An unfolding event.....

California is Bankrupt

"You mean letting in millions of low-wage earners who consume more in public benefits than they contribute was a bad idea? And that allowing teachers, nurses, and prison guard unions get too strong was a bad idea?

No way. Liberalism teaches that unions are, well, something to say yes to.
California had an economy larger than most first-world nations. Now it's broke. Remarkable.

What is not remarkable is the cover-up. No one is talking about why California is broke. You can't, because then you'd be racist. Or you'd hate teachers. Everyone knows a nice teacher. Therefore, all teachers are great. Therefore, teachers unions can't be too powerful.

Incidentally, California's situation shows why libertarian economists are morons. Libertarian economists support open borders. California has open borders. Look what has happened.

Open borders work great in the absence of a welfare state. I would support open borders if no taxpayer would be required to pay for immigrants' free health care and education. That's not what has happened.

In a perfect world, yes, we'd have open borders. Anyone who wanted to make his or her way through life would be allowed a shot. Rise or fall.

We don't live in a perfect world. We live in a welfare state. Opening the borders expands the welfare state, since people are not allowed to fall. And so California, once its own world economy, is bankrupt."

 

[rederob]

I feel like a boxer standing in the ring and watching his punch drunk opponent knock himself out.
In this thread I contend that as a wealthy nation we can afford a greater refugee intake, that our recent migrant intake has been of benefit and, that as a nation we are much the better for it.
Apart from several ethnic groups having a criminality rate higher than that for Australian born, the contrary view is otherwise mired in economic mumbo jumbo and ill considered comparisons.
We are not Europe and not California.
And we are not bankrupt.

 

[ColB]

Originally posted by Rederob

"...In this thread I contend that as a wealthy nation we can afford a greater refugee intake..."

Yes, you are right on that score Red, we can afford a greater refugee intake BUT it will be to the detriment of most people living in Australia in the immediate future.

 

[helicart]

We are not Europe and not California.
And we are not bankrupt.

I only look punch drunk because you are looking at me through the bottom of your empty pint of cheap plonk Chairman......but don't stop at one...:drink:


Your wheels are spinning Chairman, but there's no traction.....

So what should we increase immigration by to get us out of the grip of the GFC? That's your argument isn't it.....that more immigration will only add to gdp per capita and therefore be the economic stimulus creme de la creme..... So why hasn't Rudd worked that out?

And you are right that we are not California, we are about 10-15 years behind...but you want us to be California....don't you Chairman....right now

Further, your advice to Arnie would be to have even more migrants come, because they all work harder than the locals, and can only increase GDP per capita......plus you would advise that jobs don't even have to exist for them, because as they swell the population they would create their own demand, which would create employment opportunities....ummmm.......yeaaahhhhhhhh......rrriiiigggghhhhhhtttttttt....

You go tell the terminator how it is Chairman......there's a good fella

 

[rederob]

So what should we increase immigration by to get us out of the grip of the GFC? That's your argument isn't it.....that more immigration will only add to gdp per capita and therefore be the economic stimulus creme de la creme..... So why hasn't Rudd worked that out?

And you are right that we are not California, we are about 10-15 years behind...but you want us to be California....don't you Chairman....right now

I don't recall saying we should increase migration.
And California is irrelevant to my considerations on migration.

 

[ColB]

Originally posted by Rederob

"...I don't recall saying we should increase migration..."

By inference, your whole argument throughout this thread supports immigration. Nice play on words though Red

 

[rederob]

By inference, your whole argument throughout this thread supports immigration. Nice play on words though Red

You are right.
I would not support an increase to migration in the present climate, but I believe our refugee intake needs to be steadily ratcheted upwards.
Refugee intakes are much more costly in the short term, particularly as this group will have language difficulties on top of cultural challenges. However, Australia's cultural diversity infrastructure is now quite mature and resettlement is well managed.

 

[doctorj]

I don't see how a brain drain from a developing nation can be beneficial to that country..... I think you're taking a long shot. Ultimately, developing nations would be better off with the educated driving politics and economic development, rather than abandoning control to military thugs and the criminal element (Mexican drug lords).

South Korea is doing very well because the educated didn't flee it in droves. In fact, they have become a source of employment for foreign labor. The speed with which South Korea has modernized itself disproves so much of the West's paternalist attitude towards developing nations.

One could easily argue Western paternalism and enticement of skilled labor from developing nations hold these nations back from the natural struggle towards democracy and a more just society. What would have happened if Mahatma Gandhi had chosen the comfort of staying in England and practising law?

The highly skilled labor Australia prefers comes from the UK, Canada, Europe, and Sth Africa. Skilled labor from developing nations generally do not have their qualifications recognised and have to repeat their whole degree, or accept work in stations beneath their preference, making them unhappy. I have worked with enough of them.

Unfortunately, the people in these countries don't live 'in the long run'; their needs are immediate. There is no pension system, no safety net and little savings. An individual's 'superannuation' as they leave the work force is two fold - their house (which tends to be former state owned housing, or something they've bought during their working years) which is nice but very difficult to monetise and the education of their children.

Without the country investing in pension scheme (which would require World Bank or IMF funding), you NEED remittances from overseas workers to keep food on the table.

I agree that in the long run, this sort of brain drain isn't helpful for a developing country to transition to the first world, but there isn't much of an alternative.
I've worked with dozens (if not hundreds) of people from 'developing' countries - Philippines, Thailand, Poland, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, even many of the former soviet -stans. For the most part, they are highly skilled and very good at their job. Language skills and getting their qualification recognised tends to be where the issues are, but this can be a problem with all overseas workers. For example, I know first hand of 2 people at big 4 accounting firms here in the UK of South African and Australian origin that are having to sit local qualifications to be eligible for partnership.

I believe the best thing the developed world can do to help the developing world is to provide a steady supply of capital that is contingent on local countries and businesses taking steps to improve their practices, modernise and reduce corruption.

In this, highly educated people with international experience from these local countries are a valuable resource to help understand the local market to better direct capital and attached conditions to help build local businesses and markets.

 

[helicart]

The issue, as I see it, is that we are now in a "global" environment and need to accept our reasonable share of responsibilities.

And a reasonable share is what Chairman?
There's 5B people in the world economically and socially worse off than us...

Which services in Australia do you want to take govt expenditure from to pay for our share of responsibilities to the 5b.....

Do you want to spend that on 300 boaties or 300,000 via education and population control in their homeland?

Never mind answering....it was a rhetorical question...I realize such calculus does your head in cos you want to help everyone who hasn't got as much bling in their lives as you.

But who are you to say what is the better path to happiness Chairman.....Your paternal attitude to foreigners may very well deprive them of the inspiration and wisdom of Buddha Boy....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v29clGMWU84&feature=channel_page