With the recent threads on the refugee intake, it's quite obvious there are more supporters than opposers on this site.

So, taking this in mind and, considering it's a fair assumption to suggest most here are not high income earners, I want you to consider this.

Fewer than 30% of tax payers actually pay more in taxes than they draw in welfare, and many of these are actually large corporations.

Hypothetically speaking, assuming the majority here are being supported and, you want to allow these additionals in, what would you be prepared to give up to allow this to happen.

For the purpose of the thread, I would like people to respond on the basis of 'IF I were NOT a high income earner' I would be prepared to give up ?

By doing this we are not providing personal information.

My vote is nothing, as we simply can't afford them and, if we are going to increase our debt, it should be by way of investing in infrastructure for the betterment of society.

with the masses of public servants complaining about a $7 doctor fee I doubt whether many are willing to give up anything.

rehctub, I doubt many of those getting more in government support than they pay in tax will cope with the idea of giving something up. The obvious solution will be to hit middle income earners harder.

Lots of things I'd give up (mostly because I don't get them).

My main focus interest in taking in refugees is that it not be a set for life ticket.

That we should retain the right to deport any who come here and either commit any serious crimes or a pattern of flouting lesser laws.

That we perhaps spend a little more and ensure programs are in place to give refugees every opportunity to integrate and become productive members of our society and send any who won't work towards that target on their way. I'd like to see us make it easier (and cheaper) for those with foreign qualifications not recognised here to retrain (subsidised bridging courses etc) or have their skills and knowledge assessed and if up to a suitable standard qualified to use those skills and qualifications here.

R0bert

Dear RObert,

Very well said.

Australia has become and is changing even more to a
vastly different place from the British Isles in which
our institutions originated, just as Britain is having
to adapt to its changing population, so our institutions
are now required to respond to the needs of a
culturally and linguistically diverse society.

It is in the interests of all Australians that the three
tiers of government - Commonwealth, State, and local -
intervene where necessary to manage our diversity in the
interests of cultural tolerance, social justice, and
economic efficiency and for that we need to plan with
appropriate programs and policies.

Overseas experience has shown the often tragic consequences
that occur when societies are unable or unwilling to
integrate newcomers, especially in situations in which some
minority groups find themselves restricted by barriers of
prejudice or culture from enjoying the same opportunities as
the host society.

Our own recent history has revealed instances in which lack
of foresight has resulted in unfairness and unnecessary
inefficiency, the prodigious wastage of overseas skills being
perhaps the most telling examples.

I've stated earlier on this forum that this doesn't mean we
should dismantle or repudiate our institutions in order to
start afresh. Instead we should make our institutional
heritage work better for us by enhancing its capacity to
respond flexibly to the needs of an ethnically mixed
population. What we need is a positive policy response.
Inaction can only exacerbate the problem.

The government should seek social cohesion - not social
engineering.

I would willingly pay extra taxes to help support these
programs. A cohesive society would be worth it.

I agree with RObert and Foxy in that the refugees remain law-abiding and working towards a job (any job) to pay their own way as soon as possible.

Rehctub is just being typically hysterical over the whole refugee crisis in thinking only about himself, and what he wants to keep all to himself.

I would suggest that the Governments, both state and federal, could help pay to settle the refugees in Australia by axing some of the non-essential expenses like the chaplaincy program in public schools, take the tax-free perks off mad religious cults like Scientology, or the 'perks' that politicians or ex-PM's get paid above and beyond their salaries, and increase taxes on the high income earners.
That would scrape up millions for the refugees....

Sorry Foxy, but we are not the ones who refuse to integrate and it's not just Australia that suffers from this problem.

Suze, so where do you think the Jobs will come from? I can't see where so perhaps you can and do remember, just having a wish list of sorts doesn't make it happen.

Like many migrants before them, I imagine many of the Syrian refugees will take the jobs that many of our own unemployed won't do.
Don't worry Rehctub, your beloved Libs will work it out.

Foxy Quote " when societies are unable or unwilling to
integrate newcomers, especially in situations in which some
minority groups find themselves restricted by barriers of
prejudice or culture from enjoying the same opportunities as
the host society."
I put it to you as a question, What do you think we should do with the ones that just do not want to integrate with the Australian way of life values etc?

Hold on, rehctub,

Lets just clarify a few things first.

Prior to the Abbott govt's advent, Australia made available 20,00 refugee places per annum. Upon taking govt, Abbott and Co cut the intake to 13,750 per annum. That's a cut of 6,250 per annum.

They have now stated after being dragged kicking and screaming that they will make available an additional 12,000 places - not as an ongoing arrangement, but as a one off - which merely reinstates the places that the govt cut over the two years since taking office,

Two years ago, (before the govt had run up debt by an additional $115 billion dollars while simultaneously cutting refugee intake - and cutting overseas aid by $11 billion) were we desperately finding it hard to exist? Were we being asked to "give things up"?

Also this:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/04/refugees-are-australias-most-entrepreneurial-migrants-says-research?CMP=share_btn_tw

"Refugees are not taking Australian jobs, they are creating new ones, according to new government research that reveals humanitarian arrivals are the country’s most entrepreneurial migrants."

People from the UK and India – most of whom arrived on skilled or family visas – contributed the largest share of the $38bn earned by migrants in Australia in 2009-10, data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, released on Friday, reveals.

But it was migrants who arrived as refugees who reported the highest proportion of their incomes that year “from their own unincorporated businesses”.

This income grew with the length of time they spent in Australia, and “increased sharply” after five years of residency.

The report built on earlier research showing humanitarian migrants tended to work several jobs in their first few years in Australia to build capital to start their own businesses, the ABS said.

Nearly 10% of humanitarian migrants’ incomes in 2009-10 were generated by their own businesses, almost twice the figure recorded in other categories, such as skilled and family migrants.

This income was overwhelmingly made by men, most aged between 25 and 44. Afghans earned the largest share of the profits generated by humanitarian migrant businesses."

Obviously my typo above reading "20,00" on the third line was meant to read 20,000.

While there are some obvious barriers to integration (perceptions of a uniformly extremist Islam among them [though, of course, Syria was once one of the more progressive and liberal Muslim-majority states, and the groups trying to tighten the reins are arguably those pushing refugees out of the country]), the notion that Syrian refugees must simply abandon their own way of life and adopt our own denies the existence of opportunities for mutual learning here.

One example could be family structure. While our media predicts financial mayhem due to our aging population and the pending retirement of the Baby Boomers, Syrian families (among other non-Western societies) apparently take the burden of caring for their elders (including, I assume, financial burden) upon themselves. The three-generation family is, from much of the reading that I've done, the norm. There are obvious benefits (including financial benefits) there and, if 12,000 Syrian refugees brought this practice with them to Australia, would it be such a terrible thing if, in 50 years time, it was more common in Australia? Opening our doors to migrants (including refugees) before has broadened our cuisine, heightened our awareness of the world across the seas and somehow, we've survived the negatives.

As long as we aren't FORCED to live like our new neighbours, I'm happy to see how they live and have them live among us.

I do agree, though, that the expectation should be that they abide by our laws, and that murderers and rapists and the like should be deported. Minor criminals, assuming that we have programs in place to help them to understand our laws, should also be sent packing if they continue to disobey those laws anyway.

Otokonoko, you say they take care if their own. That's sure would be a whole lot easier in a push over country like ours, where the term 'take care of your own' is dome so by financial support from the tax payer.

Poirot, there are no jobs to be had and, we can no longer provide for ourselves.

Just where are these jobs going to come from?

Suze, when migrants take the jobs the locals won't, the unions get up in arms about under payment, like $10 per hour strawberry picking.

Stop paying people to not work and those jobs will soon be filled by locals.

15,000 refugees is a sizable town, so what are the benefits of 15,000 people.

They eat. So where does all that food come from and who benefits.
They house , they wear cloths, they do things that any normal person does.

The benefits to small business is enormous. That is where growth comes from, with Australia’s measly population, we need growth.
15,000 extra persons in the population jobs are going to be created, to cater for that influx.

So there will not be any giving up involved, it will create more activity, and that is what it is all about

Doog - A lot of those new jobs supposedly created will be Government employees or on Government contracts, some will not be paid charity employees.

Where will they be housed in the affluent suburbs NO way they will be in the poor sections of any state.

All of them at the expense of tens of thousands of homeless Australians.

rehcub

What about the 200,000 plus legal migrants we allow in every year?
If we cant afford a few thousand refugees how can we afford 10 times more coming here as migrants?

mikk - The ones you try to use as an example do not get free housing, welfare for life from day one, free medical etc.

Good try but you are way of mark.

You are missing the point. At present WE CAN'T PROVIDE FOR THE NUMBERS WE HAVE TODAY, without borrowing. Where do you think the additional money will come from for these extras, borrowings!

Doog, what you speak of is a dog chasing it's tail, the spending money you speak of will be welfare. These welfare dollars are coming from consolidated revenue and they were paid by the tax payer fir the intention of providing services.

WE ARE NOT MAKING ENDS MEET.

How do we provide for the extras, that's all I'm asking and, what will you give up in favor of providing for these people?

All the usual fear-mongering is still
going on. Hard to believe.

Where will all the jobs come from?
Perhaps if there were less cuts to health, education
and other services - new jobs could be created.
Economies don't grow by making cuts and people stop
spending. Logic should dictate that.
Also we now have a new Prime Minister who has already
signed off on the NDIS and made sure that the
administration of this scheme takes place in Geelong -
giving that city a much needed boost job-wise.
Not to mention much needed help to over 150,000
people and their carers. Who knows what's around the
corner with this new leader.

BTW - as Julie Bishop has confirmed - money will be
forthcoming from the DFAT's Overseas Development Aid
Budget for this extra intake of refugees and their
re-settlement. The money is available and in the
past was used to respond to emergencies like tsunamis
and earthquakes.

As for being frightened whether these people will
Integrate? Prior to being selected they have to pass
certain criteria (as do all refugees coming into
this country). And our laws and values are fully explained.
They are desperate people fleeing persecution. They will
deeply appreciate being given a chance at a new life.

Still there will remain people who are terrified of any
changes - and prefer to take us back to the "good old days?"
We have made tremendous steps forward in this country
thanks to our programs and migrant intakes. And we shall
undoubtedly continue to do so, despite the fear-mongering
that for some has always existed. They will end up on the
ash-heap of history - and this country will succeed despite
them.

....this country). And our laws and values are fully explained.

Foxy, perhaps you might like to explain this to the kids who lost their mother thanks to one Man Manus. Perhaps the laws weren't explained to him, hey!

Butch is right, the money for this project will come from borrowed funds and may mean delays to other projects.

However, if the government sticks to its stated intention of giving preference to non muslims, then I have high hopes that these refugees will integrate far better than others have done.

There is little doubt that the non muslims in the ME are the most persecuted groups there.

If one looks at our migration history one finds that the non muslim portion of our Lebanese migrants/refugees have integrated well. It is the muslims that have caused problems because of their cultural differences.

A tier of government.

Do you not see the civil wars and ethnic cleansing going
On in so many countries around the world.

All the armies that fought in history should have just thrown their weapons away
and just arrived and set up house in any country they fancied.

No need to invade countries anymore just roll up in the
Millions without weapons, The united Nation war courts have decreed you can't
Be shot for doing so.

Bloody fools