According to 'The Guardian' the government has made changes to the 'assurance of support' scheme which will keep more migrants off welfare; and, the beauty of it is, the senate will not be able to interfere in the usual manner. There have been no changes to the scheme, which ensures that families/sponors can provide for categories of migrants who would otherwise be a burden on Australian taxpayers, for a decade. A spokesperson for social services says that the change is essential for Australia's social security system to remain viable. In short, people sponsoring migrants will have to earn more, and have increased funds for bank guarantees.

Objections have been raised by the usual suspects: The Federation of Ethnic Communities Councils of Australia; the Chinese community, and migration agents. There is concern about family reunion, which usually involves unproductive people who quickly add to the welfare bill without having contributed in any way to Australia.

No legislation was required for the change, which came into force from April 1st this year. And, of course, Labor hates it, Jenny Macklin reported that many Chinese people are “very angry”. Macklin is clearly unconcerned about the angry Australians who are sick of freeloaders from overseas continually bumping up their tax bills.

I believe that it is quite stupid of Australia to allow anyone who does not have a job lined up, or who cannot support themselves with their own funds, to even come to Australia to live. It's bad enough having to carry poorly screened and carelessly selected maybe-be refugees who will never be of any use to the country.

Despite the vaguely racist allegations and the blurring between migrants and refugees the fact remains that after 5 to 9 years, Asian and European ­immigrants actually have a lower jobless rate than ­Australian-born workers as well as a higher rate of patent applications.

Unemployment drops to 3.6% for southeast Asian migrants and 1.9% for those from southern and eastern Europe. Meanwhile locals keep hovering around 5.6%.

However Middle Eastern migrants do have a higher and longer rate, mainly due to employer resistance in awarding jobs to men named Mohammed or women who wear headscarves.

Although refugees don't, migrants currently had to wait for 2 years before being eligible for welfare payments but the latest move just stretches this out to 3 years.

Migrants already need to meet specific Skilled Job requirements before being allowed entry.

I suspect this latest move is less about saving money but more about looking tougher on immigration and dog whistling to far right factions inside the government.

Liars & con men selectively quote statistics.

How about some over all figures, including middle eastern & African figures rache.

Funny how the bed wetters always bring 'racism' up in any discussion on immigration. Having skills doesn't mean that the skilled actually have jobs to go to, either.

Just build bigger troughs and outsource all the work to China and the Philippines

I did say "However Middle Eastern migrants do have a higher and longer rate".

People born in North Africa and the Middle East have unemployment rates of 33.5% during the first five years of settlement in Australia.

Recent arrivals from North Africa and the Middle East have low labour force participation rates during early settlement - just 38.2% for those who arrived within the last five years. But this rises rapidly to 54.6% for those who arrived 5-9 years ago.

By the time they have been in Australia 15-19 years, labour force participation (66.2%) approaches the overall rate in Australia (67.9%).

Those who have been in Australia 15-19 years had an unemployment rate of 4.8% in December 2016, which was lower than both the rate for people born in Australia (5.5%) and the current overall unemployment rate (5.7%) of the country.

The children of refugees commonly have higher levels of labour force participation and educational attainment than other migrants and even the rest of the Australian-born population.

Better to be accused of being a liar or a con-man than showing yourself to be a half-witted bigot with a narrow-minded agenda eh?.

Dear rache,

Thanks for those stats.

I can't really comment much on who's on welfare and who
isn't in this country, and why that's so.

My parents came here as refugees after the second
World War. They worked hard all of their lives and managed
to make a life for themselves here. Their children did the
same. They instilled in us the importance of being
independent and having skills to offer so that we can support
ourselves and our family and in that regard we've done just that.
But we earned it through hard work. Nothing was "given" to us.

As for refugees? I volunteer part time in an aged care facility.
Most of the staff there are from various countries. India,
Pakistan, the Phillipines, Asia, Lebanon, Russia, and so on. They're
fantastic workers and the old people love them. There's even -
Sudanese, and Africans, (one of the charge nurses is from Africa).
Others are from Egypt, Israel, Iran, Syria and Iraq. All of them
work very hard. And all of them are happy to be here in this
country. As far as I know - none of them are getting any
government handouts. Now, several of our Australian neighbours,
have sons and daughters who are on the dole. They spend their
week-ends partying.

Interesting.

"Better to be accused of being a liar or a con-man than showing yourself to be a half-witted bigot with a narrow-minded agenda eh?."

Where on earth did that come from, and what is it supposed to mean, I wonder. An automaton reeling off statistics irrelevant to the topic suddenly blurts out something that makes no sense at all. Bed wetter doesn't come near describing the wretch.

God forbid that we end-up with Shortens Labor party (if it doesn't morph into Pliberseck's Labour Party before-hand), after next election.

The fox in the OLO henhouse, will be laying double-yolkers....

Ttbn.

Actually, you've just unravelled a local mystery for us.

I have some attachment to Nth Sydney, where a property starts in the low millions and works upward.

The mystery has been the numbers of Chinese scrounging around in the locals footpath garbage.

They have become colloquially known as the scrounging dogs of north Sydney: But yet predominate in the local property market.

Obviously they are putting the subsidised relations to work scrounging through garbage.

Just demonstrates the low dogs they are!

So Rache, on your figures half the refugees we bring in are going to cost us $4,500,000,000 before they get a job. The other better ones just $2,250,000,000 before they do.

With all that help, we should be out of debt in about 10,000 years.

'The mystery has been the numbers of Chinese scrounging around in the locals footpath garbage.'
Do they do it out of necessity or circumstance?
Whatever the case I don't believe there is a loss of dignity otherwise they wouldn't do it.
An honorable man would live and let live...but then there aren't many of those around, it would seem.
A 'king hit' nowadays referred as a cowards punch, and whether thrown physically or metaphorically, it's still the same thing.

In SA it is an offence to remove material put out for collection by the council. Once it hits the footpath, all material becomes the property of the council. This highlights another problem with mass importing of immigrants from Third World countries with no tradition of law and order.

SA laws.....nuff said...backward lot still trying to do it with smoke and mirrors

From the Productivity Commission --

For a mere $50,000 each, the non-productive parents of migrants can enter Australia and, after a period, are entitled to every benefit available to those born in Australia, including the Age Pension. The real cost to the Australian taxpayer is between $335,000 and $420,000 per visa holder. In net present value terms, this amounts to between $2.6 billion and $3.2 billion for every annual intake of migrant parents.