Dear Imajulianutter,

<<Is it fair they are funding Ali's irresponsibility?>>

Of course not!

Migrants (and I am a migrant myself) should not receive any benefits from the state at least until they are full citizens, which should be at least 10 years later.

In general, I believe there should be several tiers of citizenship and only the innermost tier should receive any financial benefits - in return for deeper conformance.

If however Ali himself or someone else is willing and happy to fund him and his family, then why not allow him to stay (assuming of course he is not a criminal risk or a health hazard)?

Yutusu

We agree. I' d even sanction government guaranteed loans as a possible solution.

What do you think Michael?

I see that the expense of these various policies is of particular concern to many of you. In the example I gave, Ali had been holding down a job in regional Australia for almost two years. Ali was financially independent. Due to the policy of the new government his bridging visa, like those of most others in his cohort, was left to expire. This meant he no longer had work rights and his employer could be fined if he continued to allow him to work. If Ali continued to work and the Department become aware his application for protection would be adversely affected. The current government has forced asylum seekers back onto welfare payments and won't even let them undertake voluntary work. Furthermore, many employers in rural areas have lost a large number of their staff over the past few months due to the denial of work rights. These employers cannot find local people who are willing to undertake the jobs that asylum seekers will do.

As to the notion of tiers of citizenship, that is an interesting idea but it would be inconsistent with our constitution as it currently stands. It is not possible to create classes of citizens, some of whom have more rights than other classes

As to the ideas of loans for asylum seekers to cover their expenses, I presume that if you endorse this idea than you accept that asylum seekers must have the right to generate income in order to pay back the loan. This is a greater concession than what our current government is willing to bestow. I suspect most asylum seekers would actually endorse such as idea as they are willing and eager to contribute to Australia. Of course, if we allow them to put their skills and work ethic to use then they are already contributing to the tax base and will continue to do so over their life here. We have a number of very successful Australians who have contributed a great deal to Australia through academia, innovation and entrepreneurialism who also happen to have a refugee background.

Dear Michael,

<<It is not possible to create classes of citizens, some of whom have more rights than other classes>>

But of course more rights come with more obligations.

On one extreme, those on the outermost tier should receive no protection or aid from the state, but in turn should only be obliged to follow such laws that protect the ability of the rest of society to peacefully enjoy the full benefits of their society. On the other extreme, those in the innermost tier would benefit from all current state-protections and perhaps even more, but would be obliged in return to follow the state's direction and contribute as much as they can to the state's objectives. Then there's all that's in-between.

This idea will turn Locke's/Rousseau's illusory "social contract" from a myth into reality.

No Australian should be disadvantaged from this as all current Australian citizens and their future progeny will automatically be members of the innermost tier unless they opt out.

Constitutions can be changed to accommodate tiers of citizenship.

While certain issues like election-rights cannot be resolved without changing the constitution, other aspects can be implemented even under the existing constitution.

For example, nothing in the constitution mandates Medicare, so citizens should be able to opt out of Medicare. They will then not receive any free medical services from the state, but in turn they will be able for example to drive without seat-belts or helmets, because if they get injured it will become their own problem alone (or that of their private health insurer).

In another example, Australians travelling overseas may be asked whether they consent to follow certain Australian norms while abroad and continue to pay Australian tax. Those who agree will receive full Australian passports while others will only receive/purchase basic travel documents that do not grant them any consular protection or assistance.

With such a tiered system, I can't see why anyone should object to allowing any immigrant/refugee who does not pose a criminal/health risk to come and remain in the outermost tier (for those worrying about jobs, legislation may preference inner-tier citizens)

I take it Michael your two previous post were addresing me?

I've been with my mates drinking rum this afternoon on our yachts so I'm a bit pissed right now and I hear an invite for dinner.
i'll get back to you tomorrow. I find your response interesting ... odd but interesting.