For some reason, I just don't want this thread to die.

I have one question for those who believe the government is making secret payments or whatever it is you believe. If you've looked at the links on this thread, you'll know what the government *claims* to give by way of benefits to refugees.

This is just a hypothetical question. I do understand that some people believe that the original email was not a hoax, that the federal government, the Department of Immigration and Centrelink are all lying — in collusion with the goverments of Canada and the United States — about the payments they make to refugees.

But if these organisations were actually telling the truth, and the payments made to refugees were as they claim, do you think that those payments are fair?

If you've forgotten what the government says the payments are, look at the links above. But basically Australia does not give cash payments for refugees. It gives some one-off assistance to set up a household if refugess status is accepted. At this stage, refugees are not entitled to Centrelink benefits, and generally rely on charities to help them meet their basic needs. If people are granted temporary protection visas, they get access to restricted benefits. If the refugees become permanent residents or citizens, then they get access to the same benefits as the rest of us. I already provided references for these claims, but if you can't find them let me know.

Again, I know you believe that the above is a lie and the government is engaged in a conspiracy, but do you think the system *would* be fair *if* it were true?

Hey Bugsy obviously it would not only be Australia it would be a concerted effort by all those who are willing to help. I am sure people with there minds in the right spot could easily see the merits of such a move.

Even a super power like the USA has problems huh? In comparassion to what? As far as I can tell it has been an invasion which has cost the least amount of western causalities per day in the field ever! If you look at it like that it has been a stunning success.

Bugsy a word of advice don’t go trying to pick people up on spelling mistakes it merely shows you are grasping at straws and pointing out their “speling” mistake proves that you have nothing to counter my argument.

Vanilla – As I stated in my first post the email is obviously a hoax but the gist of it that refugee will be getting more money in the long run then people who retire on the pension will is correct as I have already pointed out to you. You can argue about it all you like but a fact is a fact!

Yeah ET, spelling mistakes I can handle and usually let them pass by, but I just couldn't let a decent irony go without comment.

I wasn't only referring to Iraq, but also to Somalia. Remember that? What a great success that was eh? Stopped all those pesky refugees didn't it?

If you want to gauge success in a mission by not dying very quickly in large numbers, then I guess by all means call the occupation of Iraq it a success. Stunning would probably be a word to describe it, yes.
By most other measures.......well time will tell won't it?

What a twisted way of looking at the world, when one can say "well our boys aren't dying at a very fast rate, what a success!"

Easytimes: "As I stated in my first post the email is obviously a hoax but the gist of it that refugee will be getting more money in the long run then people who retire on the pension will is correct as I have already pointed out to you."
Notwithstanding your unfortunate sentence structure, your facts, in that first email, were incorrect.

"educating not only them but also the children"

Refugees are entitled to 510 hours of free English language instruction. However, the government no longer pays teachers to give this instruction. The teachers are volunteers.

Children with refugee status do not receive extra funds from the Dept of Education.

"health care"

Again, refugees who are permanent residents have the same access to Medicare as other residents. If you have evidence they cost the system more, please post it.

"Once they are in the door they can get the brothers/ sister cousins……. 3rd cousins half brothers dog..."

The dog! What a wit you are! TPV holders are ineligible for resettlement on family reunification grounds — they cannot even sponsor their own children. When refugees become permanent residents, they can "propose" new entrants to the country. These people must then meet the requirements of either refugees or migrants. Many refugees have been separated from their immediate family when they were forced to become refugees.

"Social cost which cannot be measured!"

That is true. Refugees contribute in untold ways. Generally, they are brave people who have come from war-torn countries, and bring dignity and bravery and — above all — gratitude to their citizenship that native-born Australians are often too complacent to fully inhabit.

"These including driving up the cost of housing"

Fairly obviously, it's not refugees who are driving up the price of housing. For a start, they usually rent, and besides, they're too small a percentage of the Australian population to affect statistics.

"Trying to blow up trains in Melbourne (I wonder how many millions this ones costing the aussie tax payer but it could have been worse if they were successful)"

Who are these people? The only terrorist trial in Melbourne that relates to train attacks does not involve refugees — the accused are all migrants.

In sum, given that refugees have access to no more benefits than people who are born here, refugees cost the taxpayer less than native-born Australian.

For some reason, you're not being honest. You are afraid of refugees — isn't that true? Afraid of how you think they will change the fabric of this nation that I'm sure you love.

I agree with your suggestion that we should look at the countries that create refugees and be a part of the international solutions to the problems these people face.

Well Bugs we knocked over Iraq in a few days and have lost only a few thousand in more then five years! Sure it’s a few thousand to many but hey it for a good cause and it will better the entire world in the long run!(In the long run and the big picture are 2 concepts that seem to elude people with your line of thought) Yeah I would call that a success in relative terms even though we have nothing to compare it to.

Vanilla 5 stars for effort! You don’t think I didn’t notice that you tried to move the goal post a few times. You moved from refugee to temp protection to citizens then back again all in the name of trying to prove me wrong. As I said 5 stars for trying but ultimately you still failed.

Lets make something clear my idea of a refugee is somebody who has come to Australia and asked the government for citizenship and have received it. I would also include their children or anybody they marry into Australia. As the link below says there is a big problem with people marrying a “refugee Australian” then divorcing them under Australian law (but staying married under Islamic law) then marrying another woman divorcing etc and continuing the cycle. Islamic men who live in the west are highly sought after in Muslim countries and thus can have many wives under Islam but when viewed through the Australian courts it is merely a man with 1 wife and many divorces. It boggles the mind how many doors this opens for economic regugee who can just hop right in.

http://www.ag.gov.au/agd/WWW/flcHome.nsf/Page/Letters_of_Advice_Letters_Civil_and_Religious_Divorce_Civil_and_Religious_Divorce_Part_2

Health care – Seeing that most of these people probably have never seen a doctor many would have on going niggerly problems which they would have just lived with in there home country but now since aussie is paying they will get it fixed. For example I am sure almost all would have dental problems.