It is contradictory to have a refugee policy that is based on anything but need.

But isn't it charming to watch the capitalist media all combining forces and claiming that they're not racist.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s2054150.htm

Whoops.

Unsound resettlement policies DENY the human rights of existing people to a harmonious, civil society.

Indiscriminate refugee acceptance will result in social upheaval of the worst kind.

THE SWISS have suddenly realized this, and with 20% of their population 'foreigners' 29%voted for a right wing anti immigration party ...at LAST.
But this is
a) Too little, possibly too late.
b) More 'reactionary' rather than responsible policy and could have been avoided BY responsible and discriminatory policy.
Yes.. DISCRIMINATORY.. if I have to I'll spell it out.. stand at flinders street with a sign to that effect.. until we 'get' it that discrimination on reasonable grounds is NOT...'wrong'.

BAD NEWS.... yes.. that it had to wait until there was a 'right wing reaction' is the tragedy of it all.. the early warning signals were there.. have been for ages... but...governments being what they are.. are loathe to deal with these issues head on when they are an embryo.
No..they wait till someone is killed on the level crossing b4 putting up boom gates.. same with other things.

A BLACK SHEEP AMONGST SOME WHITE ONES...is not a racist outburst..it is a pictorial representation of a western proverb about a child who does wrong. "the black sheep of the family" and I'm sorry.. we have absolutely ZERO need to change our own culture just because some foreigners who happen to be black...take exception and wrongly understand our culture.
Sheep are mostly white....get over it.

You won't hear the full story in the news.. but being in a gym which is also attended by a riot policeman, I get some 'inside' stories.
Sudanese and Islanders and whites are involved in assaults DAILY at Dandenong station. There is a polarization of ethnic groups.
There is an answer, its called 'responsible and selective immigration based on cultural cohesian and compatibility'.

No..I'm not saying "kick them out" or "No more" I'm saying that measures to facilitate integration and adjustment are needed.
Maybe I'll go over and have a chat with them :)

I find it amazing that we are telling people to integrate. When whites first came to Australia we didn't integrate,we took over and forced our way of life on others.Don't get me wrong,i feel integration is very neccessary,i just wonder if the aboriginals felt the same when the white man overran the country.Food for thought.Actually i believe their to be to many people being let into the country,especially the non-productive ones and the people who refuse to accept our standards and way of life.

Hi Haygirl
the real 'down to earth' issue today.. is not so much the order of arrival. Everyone 'arrives' at some point.
I think the most important thing is..that at least one reasonably homogenaeous group can sufficiently get a handle on things and give some semblence of order for the rest.

The indigenous culture and tribal life would never have survived to this day without some other power taking them over, simple coincidence of history made it 'us'.

So.. your point about "we didn't integrate" is not only true, but VITAL to understanding why Australia developed the robust character it has today.
1/ We did not integrate with indigenous ways. (which of the many tribes 'ways' would be integrate to anyway ?)

2/ We forged an identity and a history separate from the indigenous.

3/ Now we are world players in a smallish kinda way, and have alliances which should in theory guarantee our on going freedom.

4/ That alliance (Anzus) does not place unbearable burdens or conditions on us of a financial or economic or trade nature.

In summary.. we have it pretty jolly good.

I see no valid reason whatsoever for Indigenous PEOPLE not integrating with the rest of the PEOPLE in Australia. I suggest ..that 'not' to do so is quite racist.

"The indigenous culture and tribal life would never have survived to this day without some other power taking them over,..."(Another BOZO gem!)

RUBBISH!!

Your missionary zeal is pernicious. How many poor buggers have you forced to the path of true righteousness BOZO?

I assume what Boaz meant was simply that if it wasn't the Brits dumping their convicts here in 1788, it would have been someone else on some other colonisation mission, which I think is a pretty safe bet.

It occurs to me that perhaps we have a moral obligation to confer with the indigineous people regarding what level and what nature of immigration *they* view as acceptable. Given them they've been given no choice in the takeover of the land the last 200+ years, maybe some amends could be made.

"The indigenous culture and tribal life would never have survived to this day......"

I KNOW what he meant,dnicholson. (How come you are still getting away with two identities?)

It is utter arrogance to suggest the above.

As I said. RUBBISH!

If all people who are not happy in their own country change countries and everybody does the same, where do you stop? How far do you go? Are countries allowed to ever stop and who decides when and if a line is drawn?

It seems to me that attention needs to be paid on how to help these people in their own Countries as we cannot take them all. At the end of the day the majority of people prefer to be with their own with access to others.

That is not racism. Preference should be a freedom of choice.

Jolanda: "If all people who are not happy in their own country change countries and everybody does the same, where do you stop? "

In case you hadn't actually read the article, it's about refugees.

"According to the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, a refugee is a person who

owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion, is outside the country of their nationality, and is unable to or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail him/herself of the protection of that country.

The concept of a refugee was expanded by the Conventions’ 1967 Protocol and by regional conventions in Africa and Latin America to include persons who had fled war or other violence in their home country. A person who is seeking to be recognized as a refugee is an asylum seeker."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee

A little more serious than not being "happy in their own country", don't you think?

Well Ginx, I’m sorry, but “RUBBISH” right back at ya.

If it wasn't the Brits it would have been someone else on some other colonisation mission, which I think is a pretty safe bet. (To pinch a few words off dnicholson).

And the French, Dutch, Portuguese or Spanish, or perhaps the Indonesians or Chinese, would not have been any nicer to the indigenes. That’s not supposed to be any sort of justification for the invasion, murder and displacement undertaken by the British. It is simply a statement of opinion, and almost certainly fact.

.
Boazy, I agree! Immigrants (other than the refugee category) should be selected in a discriminatory manner, on reasonable grounds, based partly on the premise that; “Unsound resettlement policies DENY the human rights of existing people to a harmonious, civil society.”

But it should be different for refugees. I agree with Andrew Hewett that Australian refugee policy should be “non-discriminatory and firmly based on the actual humanitarian needs”.

We should perhaps increase our refugee intake to about double the current rate. And we should most definitely reduce overall immigration down to at least net zero. This would mean that refugees would make up the bulk of our immigration intake (up to 28 000 out of a total of 30 to 32 000 per annum).

We should also greatly boost our national input into refugee, poverty and sustainability issues around the world.

Well stated Andrew.

With over twenty million refugees worldwide and as many again internally displaced, Australia has to shoulder its fair share in assisting with their resettlement. And once here, we need to ensure refugees receive plenty of government and community support so they can make the adjustment to a different way of life.

There are many areas of need in the world, but I agree with you that now is not the time to be abandoning Africa.

We are a comparatively wealthy country, in fact we've never had it so good if you believe Howard and Costello, and we should be able to accommodate at least 20 000 refugees a year and as well allow for family reunion places on top of that.

I agree with Ludwig that refugee resettlement should comprise the bulk of our migration program. Our current rate of 160 000 immigrants is far too high. In particular we should end the practice of poaching skilled migrants from countries who can ill afford the brain drain. Many refugees have professional qualifications and trades skills that can easily be upgraded to Australian standards.

We should not condemn people to seventeen years in squalid and overcrowded refugee camps when it is within our capacity to help.

Boaz, your posts speak for themselves. You are determined to maintain your unearned status in this country at all costs, and against all comers.

You have benefitted from the colonization, and the appropriation of this land that created your prosperity, and are unprepared to share it.

You are now a perfect example of the dog in the manger.

But what interests me most is how you, at a personal level, reconcile your self-proclaimed Christianity with this xenophobic, misanthropic standpoint.

It seems to me to be a major contradiction. How do you do it?

Integration as well needs to be taken seriously, particularly when it comes from political leaders and indiginous aboriginal people.

http://www.hydrogen.asn.au/The-Worm-Big-John-Howard.htm

I agree with previous posters that money needs to be spent on settlement services for refugees, and that it may even pay for itself in the long run. So why isn't this being done? The answer is that free market utopias like Australia are not exactly brimming with the milk of human kindness for their own disadvantaged citizens. Just think of the schizophrenics living on the streets and the pensioners forced to pull out their own rotting teeth with pliers. Now imagine the reaction if these people and their supporters see the refugees getting services that are denied to them.

Britain faced precisely this problem with its asylum seekers and attempted to use the Official Secrets Act to cover up. The government was signing a secret agreement with landlords for housing asylum seekers that required them to meet higher standards than for needy citizens. This agreement was leaked to the British National Party and put up on their website, where the party officials dared the British government to arrest them. It didn't do so, because of the likely embarrassment. Google "BNP" and "Combined Joint Tenancy Agreement".

Pericles, go to the Numbers USA site and you will find a section on the ethics of immigration. All of the world's great religions, including Christianity, teach that we have the greatest responsibility for those who are closest to us. There is actually a medieval Jewish maxim to the effect that you should help a poor relative before a poor stranger and help the poor of your own town before the poor of some other town.

Divergence

I think the argument of helping your own first is a cop out; people use it so they can turn their back on strangers without feeling guilt. It shouldn't be an either or situation; as a wealthy and civilized society we can do both. We have a responsibility to help the underpriviledged no matter where they come from.

Once again we're seeing christianity wheeled out to justify another dubious policy position. The bible is nothing more than a book of old stories written by men with no greater claim to wisdom than any one of us. For every story or quote used to support one position there is always another to back up the opposing claim. Why did Christ allegedly tell the Good Samaritan tale if it wasn't to get across the message that it is right and proper to lend a hand to strangers?

Dissagree with Andrew. The integration prospects of both immigrants and refugees has to be considered, along with health checks, when selections are made. It would be quite wrong for us to bring a whole heap of people here, from anywhere, knowing there is little chance of them integrating into our society and they will be very unhappy.

We should be looking for the best possible outcome for the refugees and that is to select those likely to integrate. Like most countries, Sudan has people of differing cultures. Some Sudanese have integrated well here and others not. If we select refugees that will integrate we not only get the best for them, we do the best for our own society.

Some people, be they refugees or not, prefer a different society than ours. This is illustrated by the number of people that have gone back to live in Lebanon.

Seeing that whatever the number, we are limited in how many so the present figures of 30% African and 70% Iraqi and Asian seems fair. It distributes our benevolence. I do not see how to judge if some refugees can be more deserving than others. Yes funds should be available to help resettlement

An interestingly modern view, Divergence.

>>Pericles, go to the Numbers USA site and you will find a section on the ethics of immigration. All of the world's great religions, including Christianity, teach that we have the greatest responsibility for those who are closest to us<<

Numbers USA is a "non-profit, non-partisan, public policy organization that favors an environmentally sustainable and economically just America", and - it may fairly be said - was set up specifically to oppose immigration. Like One Nation, I suppose.

However, it wasn't always this way in that country. Does the following ring a bell?

"Give me your tired, your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me.
I lift my lamp beside the golden door."

I guess it depends where you sit, really. If you are already on the inside, like the Boaz's and Divergences of the world, to sacrifice a little of ones living standards - the second plasma TV, perhaps - is a shocking and unthinkable hardship. It is also worth pointing out that the US did quite well, economically, out of the "huddled masses".

>>There is actually a medieval Jewish maxim to the effect that you should help a poor relative before a poor stranger and help the poor of your own town before the poor of some other town.<<

There is also an instruction every time you fly, "if you are travelling with a child or someone who requires assistance, secure your oxygen mask first, and then assist the other person."

But be honest, you care as little about your poor neighbour as you do about immigrants, am I right?

Bronwyn,

I'm not opposed to taking more refugees, say 20,000 a year, and believe in proper settlement services for them. My point was that the government doesn't want to provide proper services for its own people and would find it embarrassing to do more for refugees.

Where we seem to differ is that I don't think we have the capacity to help everyone. To lift everyone worldwide out of poverty would take the resources of approximately 3 Earths, even if all of the resources were divided equally (see article by Daniele Fanelli in the Oct. 6 New Scientist). Given that you can't help everyone, how do you decide who to help?

For every person who uses the need to help his own as an excuse to "turn his back on strangers", there is probably a "citizen of the world" who uses the plight of refugees or the world's poor as an excuse to turn his back on his fellow citizens in need. This has the added advantage that it only requires him to loudly criticise the government. Calling for more services for, say, the disabled and their carers would mean putting his hand up to agree to higher taxes.

Pericles was using religion as a stick to beat Christians who aren't in favour of open borders. Jesus approved of the Good Samaritan, but the parable doesn't say that he neglected and deprived his own children while he helped the injured Jew.

Pericles has argued for immigration because he believes it improves per capita prosperity. His argument for more refugees seems to be that it reduces per capita prosperity, but how dare Australians be such a bunch of selfish pigs.

How about in both cases the best option might be the the one with the greatest measured benefit. And this may not involve accepting refugees at all. For example, more might be achieved by educating their citizens in Australia on scholarships instead of poaching skilled people from the rest of the world and selling off university places at the expense of Australian kids. Accepting refugees may in fact be a very inefficient way of helping.

Divergence

"I don't think we have the capacity to help everyone. To lift everyone worldwide out of poverty would take the resources of approximately 3 Earths, even if all of the resources were divided equally."

I still see this argument as a cop out. There is a big difference between the amount of resources required to lift everyone out of poverty and that required to lift everyone to a standard of living comparable to ours. As pointed out by Pericles, we in the West need to start living more simply, both from a fairness perspective as well as an environmental one. If we were to do that, there are resources sufficient for us all. What you are arguing for in effect is that the majority of the world have to live in poverty so that a privileged minority can live in affluence.

"Given that you can't help everyone, how do you decide who to help?"

To begin with, you don't lock up vulnerable boat people who have risked their lives to make it to our shores and then deport them back to the very same life threatening situations they have fled which is what our current government is doing. You also work in with UNHCR and resettle as many refugees as possible from camps where many have spent years and years waiting and have no possible hope of returning to their homeland. Of course, we need to be mindful of climate change and its negative effect on our water supplies and agricultural capacity, which is why we do need to maintain a quota system. But it needs to be more generous than it is at the moment. And we don't need the likes of John Howard and Kevin Andrews setting themselves up as the gatekeepers of the nation. They should defer to experienced international bodies who understand the wider picture.

Bronwyn,

The three Earths is what it would take to give everyone a typical Western European standard of living. Below that point, if you plot environmental footprint (i.e. consumption) against rank on the UN Human Development Index it falls off in a more or less linear way - low well-being and low consumption go together

Above the European standard, human well-being saturates, so more consumption doesn't make people any better off. Cuba was able to produce more human well-being for its level of consumption than other countries, but at the cost of great austerity and little personal freedom. To put it bluntly, we're agreed on reducing waste and conspicuous consumption (down to that 3 Earth level), but how low a standard of living and well-being would you expect your family or your friends to put up with because people in some other country have been having huge families, supporting corrupt and incompetent leaders or hanging on to cultural patterns that have become dysfunctional? Everything that goes wrong in the world isn't our fault.

Pericles,

The Statue of Liberty was a gift from the people of France and meant to represent Liberty enlightening the world. It had nothing to do with immigration. The Emma Lazarus poem was added later. I have always said that a moderate level of immigration has cultural and educational benefits, and that there are talented people who would be an asset anywhere. However, if you want to claim that the average American benefited from all those huddled masses, you need to explain why wages went up, and not down, when mass migration was ended in the early 1920s.

Listen guys, I don't mind you picking on things that I do say, but would you mind laying off the stuff that I haven't said?

Divergence:

>>Pericles was using religion as a stick to beat Christians who aren't in favour of open borders<<

Where did I mention open borders? I was simply pointing out the very noticeable absence of what my dear old grandmother used to call "Christian charity".

Only when she said it, she meant it. To her, Christians personified selflessness. Which in no-one's wildest dreams would anyone describe their attitudes here.

And Fester jumps on the bandwagon with:

>>Pericles has argued for immigration because he believes it improves per capita prosperity. His argument for more refugees seems to be that it reduces per capita prosperity, but how dare Australians be such a bunch of selfish pigs.<<

So which is it? Do I believe "it improves per capita prosperity", or that "it reduces per capita prosperity"? And just to be very clear - where did I say either one?

But you're right about the selfish pigs bit.

Oh, I forgot - Divergence again:

>>Pericles, The Statue of Liberty was a gift from the people of France and meant to represent Liberty enlightening the world. It had nothing to do with immigration.<<

I didn't mention the Statue of Liberty.

>>The Emma Lazarus poem was added later.<<

But tell me, why was it added? As a poem, it sucks. So presumably it meant something, to someone. To be sure, it gets mentioned in despatches pretty regularly.

"Well Ginx, I’m sorry, but “RUBBISH” right back at ya.

If it wasn't the Brits it would have been someone else on some other colonization mission, which I think is a pretty safe bet." (Quote: Ludwig from dnicholson)

Ludwig little poppet, my point is NOT who or other colonizes. My point all along has been that 'the indigenous culture and tribal life' WOULD have survived and very likely prospered 'to this day' if we had not interfered.

Whether you agree with this or not, THAT is the point I was trying to get across; NOT who would do it!

Well, of course Ginxy, indigenous culture would have survived if it hadn’t been ‘interfered’ with.

But this is NOT what you objected to from Boaz, is it now!

So then, you don’t actually have a problem with what he wrote, apparently?

"So which is it? Do I believe "it improves per capita prosperity", or that "it reduces per capita prosperity"? And just to be very clear - where did I say either one?"

Sorry Pericles. I didn't realise that your comments had an expiry date. But I do wonder what is being called for? How ,for example, could the lot of those in the third world be helped if Australians adopted a spartan living standard? Would the sacrifice bring about some miraculous transformation? Its a bit like the often quoted line that pilfering the skilled and able from developing countries is so helpful because of all the money they send home(assuming they dont fall into the hands of the many slave drivers about). I cannot say that I have ever heard the idea of Australia exporting her skilled and able as a means of furthering the prosperity of her citizens. It is referred to as "The Brain Drain"; hardly a flattering term.

If we really want to help the developing world, we need to help it develop. Thinking that bringing a few refugees here, as well as pilfering developing countries of their skilled and able is a bit like thinking that you have "saved" the polar bear by sticking a few on show at Taronga Zoo. The article fails for me because it makes no argument as to why accepting refugees is more effective than other forms of aid. Historical precedent suggests that technological development has made the greatest difference in our lives. Maybe it will continue to be so.

With so many in need, whom should we help? Surely of those we can, those in greatest need.

Refugees whose lives are in danger have a strong case. So do people who will starve to death if they are not helped. We can usually best help the latter by helping them improve their circumstances. (Think digging wells, developing industries, providing equipment and medical services.) We can usually only help the refugees by accepting them into our country.

"But this is NOT what you objected to from Boaz, is it now!"

Posted by Ludwig, Thursday, 25 October 2007 10:08:33 PM

OH YES IT WAS WIGSY!!

I know what I wrote. I know what I meant.

Pericles,

In view of your remarkable personal attack on me, it might be helpful to dispell some stereotypes. I live quite modestly and don't watch television at all, plasma or otherwise. I do volunteer work and donate to environmental organisations and local charities. I have been paying for the dental care of a young neighbour who has been out of work for some time, even though I am not rich and could use the money elsewhere, since the sociopaths in Parliament don't care, the local charities are overloaded, and he can't attract sympathy as a refugee or migrant. When I vote, I preference parties that promise to raise taxes (including mine) over parties promising tax cuts.

Obsession over historical injustices is stupid, since all of us are descended from both perpetrators and victims. The Aboriginal people may indeed have been the first settlers in Australia, but their ancestors were not the first in the islands to our north (google "DNA" and "peopling of Australia"). Somehow I can't see the existing inhabitants stepping aside gracefully for them. Can you? We are responsible for how we treat them now, though.

If you wouldn't feel guilty about inheriting a house, why would you feel guilty about inheriting the advantages of a culture that is less dysfunctional than others? In any case, overconsumption is a relatively unimportant contributor to global problems, as I calculate below

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6178#89070

Divergence

"..overconsumption is a relatively unimportant contributor to global problems.."

What nonsense! It is the sole contributor and the very reason the future of the earth is under threat.

Fueling the consumption of affluent societies is why we are facing a huge greenhouse gas problem, a looming peak oil disaster, widespread air and water pollution, fish stock depletion, species' extinctions, land degradation and the list goes on.

The other major threat to the planet - that of war - is also resource driven. The terrorist threat is a direct result of less powerful nations objecting to the greedy plundering of their resources by rapacious consumption-driven societies, who see the world's resources as there for the taking.

Overconsumption is far from benign, to my mind it is the crux of all our problems.

Ahhh haaa hahahaha. Well I’m so pleased that you have convinced yourself that you know what you meant Junksy. But from my viewpoint you’ve presented a perfect contradiction!

.
Banjo

“The integration prospects of both immigrants and refugees has to be considered, along with health checks, when selections are made. It would be quite wrong for us to bring a whole heap of people here, from anywhere, knowing there is little chance of them integrating into our society and they will be very unhappy.”

But given that the refugees that we accept should only be the most needy, who are in grave need of evacuation from their homeland for fear of their lives, and given that the total numbers that we accept must always be very moderate, I think that we can basically relegate your concerns to the level of very minor considerations.

Bronwyn,

Did you read the link I provided? Completely eliminating US consumption altogether, not just reducing it to, say, the European level, and making all the US resources available to be shared by the rest of the world would increase the average footprint (i.e. consumption) of the rest of the world from 18 hectares to 23. Most of this increase would be due to the reduction of overconsumption, but part would be due to there simply being fewer people. However, global population growth at the current rate would completely eliminate the bonanza and bring everyone back down to 18 hectares in 20 years. After that they would get even poorer.

Obviously "consumption" is at the root of our problems, but the fish don't care whether they are being eaten by rich Westerners or poor Asians. The only way to completely eliminate consumption is to be dead. You could pull all of the developed world back to consumption at the global average and any improvement would be completely wiped by population growth in very short order. It there are sufficient capita, it doesn't matter if per capita consumption is low.

Divergence

It might further your insight if you understand the difference between a selfish pig and a selfless person. A selfish pig is a welfare dependent person who discovers that several hundred refugees are being brought into the area, and is angry that no provision has been made to increase services to meet the extra demand. A selfless person is a politician who promotes the 300kpa+ immigration program so his mates can make a few bucks. So selfless is this fellow that he is willing to put cities at risk of running out of water for the sake of this act of kindness.

It is sad to see the developing world suffer from the consequences of corrupt agricultural markets and a lack of skills. It is sadder to see people arguing that poaching the few remaining skilled people is good for these countries. But saddest of all is to see people not comparing the efficiency of bringing a minuscule fraction of the world's destitute within our boarders with other forms of aid. I would rather see the money spent on research into biofuels and solar thermal power. These at leaast may offer us all a future.

"Ahhh haaa hahahaha. Well I’m so pleased that you have convinced yourself that you know what you meant Junksy. But from my viewpoint you’ve presented a perfect contradiction!" (Quote: Earwig!!)

And THAT is from an expert!

Ahhh haaa hahahaha.............,sheesh.

And that is your fifth post on this thread Ginxy that is not in any way related to the topic of the thread!! Tch tch tch. Naughty naughty.

.
Bronwyn, I think there is a simple misunderstanding between you and Divergence.

You are thinking of overconsumption as per-capita consumption multiplied by the number of ‘per-capitas’. In this sense, it certainly is the greatest problem, of which population size is a huge component.

But Divergence is talking about per-capita overconsumption.

You are both right, given your interpretations of this term.

Ludwig

I'm sure you're right. I don't think I have any real argument with Divergence; we seem to share a lot of common ground.

The comment I honed in on was "..overconsumption is a relatively unimportant contributor to global problems.." To me that is plain wrong and I don't think it really matters whether you're talking about per capita consumption or per capita overconsumption. I've looked at the link given to the other thread but I still can't see how anyone can argue that overconsumption doesn't count.

To me, it's the overconsumption of the West (both per capita and overall), and the way we're exploiting the world's resources to feed it, which has both directly and indirectly created the majority of the world's refugees.

Now I see the problem. I DID stick to the topic, but you decided to stick to me......;and once you get obsessed YOU GET OBSESSED don't you 'Luddles'

My fifth post? Only my fifth Scary Ludwig?
I'm always interesting in what motivates people. This site allows easy access to research..

Remember this? :-

"Oi Ludwig, guess wot…

You have now put 100 posts on this thread…..you bloomin drongo!

You've been prattling away to yourself since 22 November 2005.

And no one’s listening!

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaah hahahahahahahahaaaaaaaahaaaa haaahahaaaaaaaaa"
Posted by Ludwig, Tuesday, 15 August 2006 11:45:47 PM


"Oow you’re a wicked so ‘n’ so Luddles

Laugh all you want, but I intend to keep prattling away to myself… er, um, I mean…putting my thoughts together on this thread…. where they can be accessed by the whole wide world! (:>]"
Posted by Ludwig, Wednesday, 16 August 2006 11:50:09 PM

And THAT was just 100/101! (And the more polite of many..)

Out of 155 posts you posted 141 times....;to yourself!!..from 22 November 2005 to 12 July 2007!

And you are passing judgment on me?

I take it you had a nice afternoon checking out my post history on this forum Ginxypoo. So…um… what is your point of listing a whole bunch of quotes? Hmmmmm? (:>/

“Out of 155 posts you posted 141 times....;to yourself!!..from 22 November 2005 to 12 July 2007!”

Yep, whacky ol Ludwig has prattled away to himself for months on ‘Putting the brakes on the road toll’ ! http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2877.

That’s six posts in a row now that are completely off-topic…. and presumably there’ll be more, because you obviously completely don’t respect the forum rules. You are no position whatsoever to be critical of anyone else.

.
Fester

“But saddest of all is to see people not comparing the efficiency of bringing a minuscule fraction of the world's destitute within our borders with other forms of aid. I would rather see the money spent on research into biofuels and solar thermal power. These at least may offer us all a future.”

Money spent at the source of refugee issues is many times more efficiently utilised than money spent on setting refugees up in this country with our standard of living. So we’ve got to put most of our effort and expense into international aid efforts that address the causes and not the symptoms. But we have also got to be willing to accommodate a share of those who are in desperate need of relocation.

But I would argue that this only applies for as long as our own society is affluent and coherent and confident of a secure future. Unfortunately it is not, which may well justify pulling back on international aid expenditure and refugee intake and redirecting some or all expenditure into shoring up our own sustainable future.

Afterall, if our society falls apart, we won’t be in any position to contribute much at all to global efforts to stem the generation of refugees.

"Yep, whacky ol Ludwig has prattled away to himself for months on ‘Putting the brakes on the road toll’ ! http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=2877.

That’s six posts in a row now that are completely off-topic…. and presumably there’ll be more, BECAUSE YOU OBVIOUSLY COMPLETELY DON'T RESPECT THE FORUM RULES!!.....;

YOU (Ludo) are no position whatsoever to be critical of anyone else."

Pot? Kettle? Black?

I passed a comment on this thread. YOU misunderstood it. Since then YOU have gone off thread in an endeavour to convince me that you know better than I do what I said! EXCUSE ME!?

Don't you think that YOU should get back to the topic?

Stop wasting my time.

Ludwig

"Afterall, if our society falls apart, we won’t be in any position to contribute much at all to global efforts to stem the generation of refugees."

True, though quite apart from the moral paucity of such a position, if we don't contribute to global efforts to stem the generation of refugees, we will most certainly work against our own self interest.

As climate change and resources scarcity ever increasingly add to refugee numbers, and Australia and other affluent countries put up the barriers and say 'we'll be right, you guys go hang', the resentment created will eventually fuel the terrorist threat to such an extent that we will be constant targets and yes, at the hands of suicide bombers with absolutely nothing left to lose, our society most definitely will fall apart.

We have to engage, we have no choice, from both an ethical and a self-interested standpoint.

Andrew Hewett

While I absolutely agree that the government and broader community must work very hard to help refugees integrate, Australia's refugee policy is none of Oxfam's god damn business. Like every other country on earth, our elected representatives will make these decisios. The shift in emphasis away from Africa to Asia is right and proper. Australia SHOULD be more active in our region.

The shift in emphasis was made over twelve months ago by Amanda Vanstone in consultation with other members of the UNHCR.

I am tired of abominable NGO Luvvies thinking they have a right to lecture us. Either get your frock off and actually run for office, or keep your trap shut.

1. Only one person is wasting your time and that’s you Ginxyloo. I have zero control over what you do with your time.

2. You are asking me questions while at the same indicating that I should stop wasting your time by continuing with this dialogue. Bahrrrrilliant!

3. Seventh post in a row with absolutely no attempt made to address the topic of the thread!

4. Now, I presume you will not respond, if you really don’t want this discussion to ‘waste your time’ any further. So let this be the end of it.

.

Bronwyn, I understand exactly what you are saying. But it still comes down to priorities. If we desperately need to put maximised energy into our own social survival, then that is exactly where our energy should be put.

However if in doing that, we incurred the wrath of international elements and thus an increase in the threat to ourselves, then we would need to quickly rethink the balance.

Self-interest could well be seen as the best contribution that we could make to global quality of life. If we are able to quickly reduce greenhouse gas emissions and achieve sustainability without social upheaval, then we would be contributing well to global climate change / peak oil concerns and setting an excellent example, which would go a long way towards getting other overconsuming nations to follow suit.

But then as soon as it becomes apparent to the world that we have essentially dealt with these issues, the pressure will be right back on us to up our refugee intake and international aid effort.

It’s a hell of a balancing act.

I believe very strongly that we have to reduce immigration down to net zero over the next three or four years. Whether we then need to reduce our refugee intake remains to be seen, depending on what state the country is in by then.

Cruddwig; I am not going to allow you to decide how many times I post.

I do not attempt to tell YOU what YOU meant. I was not even initially addressing you!!

What is this REALLY all about?

Luvvie

“Either get your frock off and actually run for office, or keep your trap shut.”

Shouldn’t Oxfam have every right to express their views?

Shouldn’t any such views be debated on their merits rather than anyone telling them that they don’t have the right to express themselves?

Do you think NGOs have no right to express an opinion and that the only legitimate way for anyone to express themselves is to run for political office?

What about those who run for office within NGOs?

These are supposed to be neutral questions. I’m not trying to offside you. I just want to understand where you are coming from.

Get rid of TPVs.

Get rid of the Pacific solution.

Refugee's need compassion and support, not abuse of their rights as a human being.

Wow, this is very heavy going. It is clearly pointless trying to explain a position that has been misunderstood or misrepresented, since that explanation itself becomes misunderstood or misrepresented...

Fester, it would have helped if you had answered my question instead of going off at a tangent:

>>Sorry Pericles. I didn't realise that your comments had an expiry date<<

But the whole point was, dear Fester, that they were your comments, not mine. You simply pretended that I had said them so you could argue against. That's known in the trade as "sad".

Divergence is even more bewildering.

>>In view of your remarkable personal attack on me...<<

Eh? I have looked again, word by word. And there's nary an unkind word in sight, let alone a "remarkable personal attack".

And your point on redistribution of the world's resources is way wide of the mark.

No-one is remotely suggesting that at midnight we all share everything equally across six and a half billion people. It doesn't work that way, so there is no point setting it up as your straw-man argument.

World trade has grown consistently over hundreds of years. If you had suggested, say 1,000 years ago that the world would have the wealth available to share that it enjoys today, you'd be laughed out of court. Nevertheless, it happened. And there is absolutely no reason why the same rate of increase in global prosperity cannot be repeated in future. Simply because you cannot imagine it, doesn't mean it won't happen.

But if we carry on the way we have, and insist upon continuing our habit of out-of-control overconsumption, that growth is not going to be evenly spread, is it? The rich will continue to get richer at the expense of the poor, instead of making a conscious effort to redistribute future wealth increases disproportionally towards less fortunate countries.

The alternative is, as Bronwyn so cogently explains, an increase in envy, and an increase in our vulnerability to aggression.

Pericles

So you have never argued for skilled immigration to Australia on the basis that will increase our per capita prosperity? Now you are arguing for more refugees and reduced consumption on the basis of the moral outrage it represents. Perhaps you might do other than to assume moral failings in those you differ with. At least you seem to agree with me on the potential for technological development. So how do you think it compares with other forms of aid? How about a lives saved vs dollars spent comparison to further your argument?

Ludwig

Thanks for correcting the spelling and punctuation. I have trouble understanding how a drastic reduction in our consumption might help the third world. Accepting refugees is a great "feel good" exercise, but is it the most helpful option? The promotion of fertility in the west curtails the ability to encourage birth control in the developing world. The CC isn't much help in this regard either:

http://www.manilastandardtoday.com/?page=emilJurado_oct10_2007

But technological development can solve many problems simultaneously, and for me at least has a far higher priority.

Pericles,

Of course, overconsumption is "a" problem. It adds to the general mess and doubtless is ultimately behind the disaster in Iraq, as Bronwyn said. To say that it is "the" problem is to be too influenced by a small sliver of recent history in a favoured part of the world. A lot of what has happened in history and is happening now in large parts of the world today can be explained by the notion of a Malthusian trap, rather than steady progress in the human condition. Technological advances occur, but population growth soon restores the accustomed level of misery. After the Black Death in 1348 the wages of agricultural and then building workers rose in real terms to a point that was not matched until the late 19th century and exceeded the wages on offer during World War I. See for example

http://ideas.repec.org/p/tor/tecipa/munro-00-03.html

The Green Revolution is another case in point. People are still poor and hungry now because many countries, although not all, translated the gains into more people rather than into better living conditions.

We are now up against a whole host of environmental problems: peak oil, climate change, land degradation, mass extinctions, the pumping dry of aquifers, etc., not just one limiting factor, such as poor productivity of grain varieties. Science and technology aren't magic, and the time frame before matters get really serious is short. Going down the gurgler with poor Third World countries by overexploiting our environment and collapsing our own society is not going to help anyone in the long run. We should help people in their own countries, as Fester says, and that help should be evidence based. Refugees with no realistic prospect of going home are a special case. By greatly reducing other immigration and making sure that we only take genuine refugees, we could afford to help more of these people and to give them proper settlement services.

Divergence

"The Green Revolution is another case in point. People are still poor and hungry now because many countries, although not all, translated the gains into more people rather than into better living conditions."

You seem to be blaming the people from the third world for their own poverty. You're saying that we in the West gave them the knowhow in green technology or whatever but that they blew it. The logical extension to this argument is that we've tried to help them but it hasn't worked because of their own failings so why should we continue to bother.

The majority of the world's poverty and its war ravaged state is a direct result of the West's exploitation of resources. You only have to look at Iraq, Afghanistan and Venezuela and the way these countries have suffered over access to oil; African countries being trashed by mining conglomerates; southeast Asian countries seeing their forests devastated for timber, and the list goes on.

I know you've agreed that we need to resettle the most needy refugees in countries like our own, but I still don't like your argument that third world countries have only themselves to blame. It's an argument that gets used by others far less reasonable than yourself to justify both our piffling aid levels and our cruel and discriminatory immigration practices.

Welllll HALELUJAH SISTAH... Bronwyn finally gets it :)

>> if we don't contribute to global efforts to stem the generation of refugees, we will most certainly work against our own self interest.<<

Bronny...... just out of curiosity.. how would you "stem" it ?

What do you define as 'Global Efforts' ?

Here is where your favorite word 'rationality' must, repeate MUST come into play.

Lets do the business thing and carry out a SWOT analysis ?

But just focus on the W and the T bits.. "Weaknesses" and "THREATS"

1/ Refugees are caused by ? (fill in the blanks)

2/ Stop the cause by? (lets to multiple choice)

a) Remove the cause.. regime.. dictator... political/military/terrorist hunting them down ?

b) Recognize that some people have whacky unpalatable ideas which cause them to be hated by legitimate authority.(PKK might be one, MAOISTS of Nepal might be another or Shining Path in South America yet another) and then ask 'Do we want those whacky ideas to take root in Australia ?

c) Accept all and any who come to our shores irrespetive of their backgrounds or ideological history ?

CONCLUSION. Now..in the above, I'm sure even a reasonably smart person can see 'threat' and 'weakness' depending on which option you choose. The responsibility for us is to focus on our Strengths and Opportunities, and they include CAREFULLY ASSESSING any would be 'refugee'!

"Pacific Solution" ? Not a solution, just fodder for leftoid journalists, costly, embarrassing, preventing tin pot kings from moving toward China/Taiwan......

SOLUTION.
1/ Withdraw from the UN conventions.
2/ Chart our own course.
3/ Solid robust and responsible policy which puts Australia's interests first.

Nope..Bronny has not 'got it'..as I thought she did.

Here are your words mate.

>>The majority of the world's poverty and its war ravaged state is a direct result of the West's exploitation of resources....southeast Asian countries seeing their forests devastated for timber, and the list goes on. <<

Implied here is:

1/ Only 'The West' has exploited the resources of '3rd world' countries. (Have you by any chance read the history of Korea under Japanese colonial rule ? Ask "How many trees were left in Korea after the Japs had finished?")

2/ That '3rd world countries' do not, have not, and would not 'exploit' the resources of their 3rd world neighbours or even 'the West' if given the slightest opportunity. errr.. Ivory Coast, Liberia, Sierra Leone ? read up and weep.

(and this of course is a denial of human nature but never mind.. press on)

SOUTH EAST ASIAN FORESTS? Bronwyn.. truly you neeeed to get out more.
When was the last time you lived in one of those areas and had a real handle on 'who' is exploiting who...and why ? and what is the destination of much of this timber ?
a) Wealthy Malay Sultans.. regularly employ Chinese contractors to harvest their forests for some 'ready cash'.

b) Illegal logging is not done by 'western' governments but by Asian criminals supported by or allowed by corrupt Asian governments.

c) How much of this timber goes into Japanese chop sticks ?

TOPIC.. "integration" is a ONE way street.. if I goto China.. I learn Chinese, follow their customs as far as I can with conscience.
Thats why I speak Malay.. Indonesian and a tribal language of Sarawak.
I 'integrated'. I hardly expect the Indos, Malays, and Tribal people to integrate to my white western ways....that would be sheer arrogance.

Bronwyn,

I think you have some confusion about what the Green Revolution means. It was the effort to produce vastly more productive grain varieties that took place after World War II. The effort was spearheaded by the Rockefeller and Ford Foundations along with participation by a number of governments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Revolution

With the help of the improved varieties, which were more responsive to water and fertiliser, grain yields more than doubled between the 1960s and the 1990s. It wasn't entirely done for unselfish reasons. The Western elites had just had their noses rubbed in what can happen when poor, desperate people turn to fascism or communism.

First World elites have certainly been doing some naughty things in poor countries, although local elites have to share some responsibility, as DB has shown. However, the elites are not responsible for the fact that Rwanda's population tripled between 1950 and 1990 or that it would take 3 Earths to give everyone a Western European standard of living. It can be argued that the elites should have done more to give people control of their fertility, but bush methods can work if people are sufficiently motivated (see Virginia Abernethy's book "Population Politics").

So yes, we tried to help them and they blew it. People often do stupid things, whether they are rich or poor. Progress only becomes possible if we unflinching look at the truth, whether it is politically correct or not.