The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why talk about boatpeople when there are more pressing problems > Comments

Why talk about boatpeople when there are more pressing problems : Comments

By Susan Metcalfe, published 9/11/2009

Refugees and asylum seekers are important, but so are our disabled and their carers.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
Leigh: "My understanding of the Convention is that bona fide, refugees once processed, have no rights to pick and choose countries."

That is true. However, once they are here we have to house them until another country offers to do so. Now, you might recall the whole point of Temporary Protection Visa's was to do just that - house the refugees until someone else took them on. Surely it doesn't come as a surprise that no one did? Thus in the end the Howard government was forced to take them all.

I am not saying I think this is a good thing. I am just saying the practical outcome of a highly sort after country like ours signing the UNHCR is that all genuine refugees that manage to get here will end up staying. Another way of saying the same thing is laws, rules and rights that can't be enforced are irrelevant.

TheMissus: "The boat people are few but their cost is astronomical."

True, but that is our choice. Compared to just letting them into the country the way we deal with them now is hideously expensive. In fact so expensive the Pacific solution collapsed because it wasn't economically sustainable. The Christmas Island solution is a bit better in that regard.

Anyway expense is your main concern, you should be lobbying to just let them in. I imagine compared to the cost of raising and educating a child, refugees are an absolute bargain. They become self supporting tax payers very quickly in comparison.

Shadow Minister: "The pie is only so big"

Yeah, but in the long term they grow the pie. As I understand it, that is how all immigration is justified.

Shadow Minister: "I am willing to bet that the posters such as CJ Morgan who are so happy to give it to others probably contribute pretty close to nothing to the pie."

If you really were willing to bet on that, I'd say you have a gambling problem Shadow. If that really is the case I can only repeat the advice CJ so often gives: seek help.
Posted by rstuart, Tuesday, 10 November 2009 11:05:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rstuart,

I refer to the cost of picking them up. There appears little or no desire to reach the Australian mainland. Just call for a pick up service. Inefficient use of money that could assist far more people in other ways. Also just the cost of resettlement here. We have extreme high standards. I was talking about we came and were housed in a migrant hostel on another thread. We stayed in a metal nissan hut with no air conditioning 40 degree heat sometimes. These huts were built in a few hours, like backyard sheds. Now they are even tents wih air conditioning. I cannot afford aircon and I live in the tropics. We could help thousands of refugees in camps in countries like India for the cost of a few here. If we helped 10 thousand have a better life is that worse than giving 1,000 i pods, mental health services, health specialists, computers and aircon?

There appears this "I demand these people get preferential treatment" mindset. So many immigrants here beg every week for there family overseas to be given same. It is impossible to please every single group with their claim for compassion for who they are personally touched by. Just because this group get newspaper headline should not mean they get more for their effort. It is not refugee Idol.
Posted by TheMissus, Tuesday, 10 November 2009 11:37:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rstuart,

"Compared to just letting them into the country the way we deal with them now is hideously expensive."

Using your logic, housing prisoners in 3 star hotels is far cheaper than keeping them in jails. Why on earth would we want to do it? Maybe as a deterrent?

The pacific solution was still far cheaper than letting in tens of thousands if there was no barrier or deterrent. For example, if the oceanic Viking sailed to Sri Lanka and dropped the Tamils off there, how many would try the same trick again?

Anyone that thinks simply letting them in is not going to provoke a flood of "asylum seekers" is deluding themselves. Labor tried to tell us that, and a relatively minor relaxation increased the boat 20x or so.

Sorry, but the bleeding hearts don't have much credibility at the moment.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 10 November 2009 11:52:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As it happens, Shadow Minister, I've been paying taxes at an ever increasing rate for the past four decades. For about a decade of that I worked with disabled people, and I still donate as generously as I can to various charities, some of which are dedicated to assisting people with disabilities.

So not only do you lose your bet, but you're talking through your arse as usual.

As for the "pie", it's all a question of priorities. Australia is wealthy enough to both do more for people with disabilities and for asylum seekers. rstuart has pointed out one obvious way of saving money, to which I would add that we could axe the various middle-class welfare programs and tax exemptions for churches, funding for private schools and the national secular religion of sport. Then we could stop sending our military off on hopeless, ridiculously expensive adventures...

Lastly, your comparison of asylum seekers with criminals is typically odious. Asylum seekers have committed no crime, and in themselves pose no threat to the community.
Posted by CJ Morgan, Tuesday, 10 November 2009 2:21:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
CJ,

Tut tut, Language!!

You sound like a real captain of industry!

FYI, the average person earning in the region of $50k p.a. receives as much or more “welfare” from the state as he pays in taxes.

From what you have described, you have been suckling at the socialist teat for most of your life, and I guess will be for some time.

Your answer is for some else to pay i.e. to tax the rich more (already higher than most), spend less on the military (world peace is just a hug away) and cutting funding to sport (a real vote grabber). While you are about it, please solve global warming, and the GFC.

What in reality will happen is that the government will want to stay in power, and the money will come from the hospitals, roads, and other services and your future and ours will become a little less golden.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Wednesday, 11 November 2009 10:07:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shadow Minister: "Sorry, but the bleeding hearts don't have much credibility at the moment."

Ahh, speaking of credibility Shadow I see you made a typo earlier. You said there has been a 20x increase since labour took over. Did you get that from that other thread I saw you on - the one that said the increase was 20%. The original source document the 20% was taken from is here: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-real-reasons-for-asylum-seeker-arrivals-20091106-i0j3.html I can see you could hit an x instead of a %.

Actually I can't. Where did you get that figure from? In the linked article the good professor paints our old open door policy as being one step away from building a land bridge and hanging out the welcome sign - yet arrivals only decreased by 55% when Howard implemented his new policy.

TheMissus: "I refer to the cost of picking them up. There appears little or no desire to reach the Australian mainland. Just call for a pick up service"

Is this your idea of a joke? I hope so. If not you are letting your imagination run wild, inventing reasons to dislike the refugees to justify your patently transparent distaste for them. There are perfectly good reasons to want to reduce our immigration rate without resorting to crap like this.

In case you are serious - the refugees would be happy to travel all the way to our mainland under their own steam. We don't let them of course - we run a border patrol. It is dammed expensive to run, but it is a cost most (including I) am happy to bear.
Posted by rstuart, Wednesday, 11 November 2009 10:57:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy