The Greens and Labor are screeching that Dutton should be punished for claiming that many immigrants by boat are illiterate and largely unemployable. It would appear that now telling the truth is a crime.

While from the numbers of boat arrivals there are many success stories, unfortunately this is not true for the majority. "An Australian Institute of Family Studies earlier this year found that among adult refugees resettled here, more than 10 per cent of the men and almost 20 per cent of the women had not attended school. A further 34 per cent had less than 10 years of schooling, almost half had never undertaken paid work and a quarter had long-term illnesses or disabilities. Only 7 per cent had worked in the previous week."

For each person that cannot support themselves, there is a cost to the taxpayer of between $30 000 p.a. or higher, and resources are required to educate, house and care for them that are limited. The quota of 14 000 was based on these resources, and the numbers proposed by the greens and labor of 50 000p.a. are ridiculous.

SM,

Nice try...

"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.

Humanitarian migrants tended to work several jobs in their first few years in Australia.
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."

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/04/refugees-are-australias-most-entrepreneurial-migrants-says-research

"Study finds refugees are good for business in Australian country towns"

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/study-finds-refugees-are-good-for-business-in-australian-country-towns-2015-4

Dutton made a huge faux pas yesterday - insulting the legacy of many of those immigrants who built this nation (and who came here with limited or no English and made successes of themselves)

What a prat Dutton is...(and he took the limelight off Feeney - Lol!)

If they are good for starting businesses with their limited education skills then what the hell are we teaching our kids?

The Schrödinger's Immigrant: The one who lazes around on benefits while simultaneously stealing your job.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sIzivCJ9pzU

obviously the kids have taken Dutton out of context and refuse to have any sort of intelligent conversation about immigration. They would be the first to throw a tantrum should the Government take money from health, welfare or education in order to pay for more refugees. To bigotted to realise these simple facts.

Poirot,

You must really be desperate!

The article is so qualified as to be meaningless "But it was migrants who arrived as refugees who reported the highest proportion of their incomes that year “from their own unincorporated businesses”. Essentially means that they are unemployed and "working" in the informal sector.

The stats on the recent bunch of illegals is that only about 7% are employed, and most have no useable skills, and are a burden not a boon.

Dutton is not as big a pratt as Shorten, who once again managed to focus the attention on Labor's greatest failure

Good to see Dutton standing by what he said and ignoring the usual feral suspects. Don't like the fellow much, but he tells it the way it is.

SM,

You'll like this one...

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-greens-leader-richard-di-natale-fails-to-declare-home-pays-au-pairs-low-wage-20160519-goywxq

Greens leader Richard Di Natale fails to declare home, pays au pairs low wage

"Greens leader Richard Di Natale failed to declare his family farm in Victoria's Otway Ranges for 15 months, breaching parliamentary rules and potentially placing him in "serious contempt" of the Senate.
And Senator Di Natale has paid three au pairs to help with his family as little as $150 a week after tax, or $3.75 an hour - based on a standard 40-hour week - as well as room and board worth $300 a week."

And you do go on with your jabber - since WWII this country has been the beneficiaries of folk who have come here with not much English but plenty in the way of skills and the desire to get ahead - who have spawned generations of high achievers who have benefitted this country in so many ways.

You and the cohort here won't admit that as you're stymied by your vast bigotries and insular mentality.

Sad

Dutton is a disgrace with his obvious racist remarks about refugees/immigrants.
At least we know exactly how he really thinks.
He is obviously a left-over stain from the Abbott days, and should have been shown the door as well....along with Morrison.

Immigrants built this nation to what it is today, and many of our original immigrants were also unable to speak English nor had a good education before arriving in Australia.
Yet, they managed to do well, in many cases

So Dutton should check out his own ancestry maybe, and see if any of his own family were none too educated when they arrived in this country!

Suse,

"He is obviously a left-over stain from the Abbott days, and should have been shown the door as well....along with Morrison."

But Mal has backed him all the way!

According to Mal, Petey the Sadist is "outstanding" as Immigration Minister.

Which tells you a lot about this govt's agenda...

Shadow Minsiter:

" ... many immigrants by boat are illiterate and largely unemployable. ... "

Oh come now, I would put a 3rd word manual laborer/rice paddy worker up against a half dozen of you flabby mob in field work any day of the week, but don't take my word for it, let's ask the cockies that know. Who are the best manual field workers?

Conversely, if you drop them in over their heads and out of their element without an adequate orientation then you are setting them up to fail, which in turn is a failure of the guvment.

I say to you:
Vygodskii
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lev_Vygotsky

Now, my current and 2nd wife had only a primary school education in Islamic Indonesia, about 6 months in high school prior to the collapse of financial support, 6 months in a Pondok

(which she dropped out of on the grounds of being none too keen)

and yet now she holds a Diploma in Childcare and a Cert IV in Education Assistance - Special Needs.

To date this year she has paid in excess of $5,000 in tax

(which should have gone to her Super by way of Salary sacrifice i.m.o.)

and well on the way to repaying the not insignificant and on-going amount of money that has and is still being invested in her by the Australian guvment.

..

and in the figures that you quote for those who have long term illness and disability, I wonder what % of that has been inflicted upon them by their "saviors?"

Of course, in Western Australia, as we might expect, there has been interference in the education system. When migrants go to TAFE to learn english as a second language, they do after a while arrive at the Certificate III level of Spoken and Written English where they learn how to write in paragraphs.

Then, once they know how to write a paragraph they are dumped in Certificate IV which is the equivalent of leaving level english. Only the very brightest and those who already hold a tertiary qualification in their own language succeed. As for the rest, it is off to the chicken factory. This is not a jump we expect our own to manage.

..

Now, for me, it is back to thoughts of the refugee and disaster relief camps of the future. I would also have them double for training facilities for the military as Peace Keepers, as it would be a very real environment with very real dangers and yet at the same time, far safer than sucking up enrichment waste in Afghansitan or hunting Chinese subs.

Also, I would have them as scaled down "Special Economic Zones" not only to minimise costs, but also because as we progress into the so-called Asian citizens, it is my hope that in the mix their will be room for niches of trade bridges that connect direct to the local economy of our neighbors

(bearing in mind that many of our neighbors have 2 tiered economies with the top echelons dealing usually in US dollars,
(though I note with pleasure their are now emerging alternatives to this) and everyone else dealing in the local currency.))

Whilst it would be a project some years in the making, with a little more good will and a little creativity, the possibilities of making these camps self sufficient is not such an outlandish idea in my view.

P,

Yes I saw Dinner Tally's hypocrisy and was not surprised.

Now to address your vast bigotry, especially in the face of such contrary evidence.

"This is a function of them on average having less English language ability, less educational experience, different forms of family support, less pre-migration preparation, poorer physical and mental health and greater difficulty in having their qualifications and experience recognised,” the report says. In a 2010 survey of relatively new migrants to Australia, including 8500 refugees, half the respondents said they spoke English not well or not at all. The Australian Survey Research found 24.1 per cent were in paid work."

https://aifs.gov.au/cfca/publications/working-culturally-and-linguistically-diverse-cald-ad/export

Whereas the skilled migrants fare completely differently such as the ones that you referred to.

I have brought in technicians on 457 visas incl one whose kids did not speak English. My wife (and english teacher) spent many hours with them getting them integrated into school.

Notably, that on 457 visas they were not entitled to housing, medicare or free schooling, but 10 years on they are well settled and contributing well, in vast contrast to the present cohort of illegal immigrants.

Suze,

I am interested that you find Dutton's comments racist, this would imply that:
1) Immigrant is a race,
2) To not be racist one is required to lie through one's teeth.

Poirot, like all Politicians, including Bill, Mal will 'back' his man right up until he sacks him! There are no surprises there at all.

Rehctub, I think we all know exactly what Dutton meant with his comments, don't you think? He certainly wasn't talking about any of the immigrants that may be coming here from predominantly Caucasian/Western countries now was he?
So, he was being racist, no doubt about it....

Suze,

Whenever someone says "I think we all know what xx meant", that person has attached a groundless meaning to what was said and is seeking approval.

So I believe that you believe that Dutton was being racist, contrary to all the evidence.

SM,

"Not only is Dutton’s position contradicted by evidence in Australia, it is also out of step with international thinking.

Evidence and research

First, Dutton’s comments contradict the government’s own data.

The Department of Social Services, which is responsible for settling refugees, has found the vast majority of recently arrived refugees are literate in their own language and have attended school in their home countries. The majority could understand spoken English when they arrived in Australia.

Second, a review of studies examining the economic impact of refugees in Australia found no evidence they impose a net cost on Australia in the long term. Research shows while refugees may find it difficult to get jobs initially, over time their labour participation rate becomes much the same as the rest of the community.

Previous government-commissioned research has found refugees are a young and entrepreneurial cohort. Recent figures from the Australian Bureau of Statistics confirmed this finding."

Etc...

http://theconversation.com/duttons-refugee-claims-are-out-of-step-with-evidence-and-thinking-at-home-and-abroad-59626

Humanitarian migrants the most entrepreneurial: ABS report

"Humanitarian migrants were the most entrepreneurial while skilled migrants generated the most income in 2009-2010, according to figures released for the first time by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) today...."

"....Humanitarian migrants displayed greater entrepreneurial qualities and reported a higher proportion of income from their own unincorporated businesses and this income increased sharply after five years of residency.”

http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/mediareleasesbyReleaseDate/B2414902EC4790E7CA257F0F00115949?OpenDocument

incredibly what is always missed in these debates is how the socialist luv to spend other peoples money in the name of compassion. Most of them are sucking on the public purse and the obvious thing is that if they were so compassionate they would put up out of their own pocket. No they want higher wages for teachers, nurses and public servants and still want tax payer money to go to promote their own idealogies.

Mr faux Christian is at it again....Lol!

Some of us support a couple of kiddies through "Christian" organisations.

I will point out that the people I deal with in these organisations bare no resemblance to the incredible nasty faux Christian, runner.

The same people who want politicians to be honest, which Dutton was, call them 'racist' when they tell the truth.

When questioned about his failure to declare his farm, one of di Natale's minders said that the media reports "misrepresented" the situation, and completely ignored the question on underpaying the the au paires.

In the lead up to every election, we are reminded just what scumbags politicians are, but we still continue to elect the bastards.

Poirot,

What do you mean by calling runner a 'faux Christian'? After rubbishing his Christian beliefs and Christianity in general at every opportunity, you now say that he is actually not a true Christian?

runner,

I reckon Jesus was a leftie.....

well Poirot you seem to think you are omnipresent, omniscience and omnipotent so whom am I to argue with you!

P,

Virtually nothing contradicts what Dutton said. He said that many were illiterate, considering nearly 20% had no schooling that would make roughly 10 000 out of Juliar's 50 000 which is "many" in anyones book. Most had some schooling and of those most had basic literacy in their own language, but virtually none in English.

Several years later the vast majority were still unemployed and living off the state. And while no evidence was found that they were a net cost to the state, given that most have only been here for a short while, there is no evidence that they will be a net benefit either.

Yet another example of left whingers misquoting liberal pollies then then trying to condemn them for something they never said.

Yada, yada, yada, SM.

Dutton put his foot in it - that's pretty well established by now.

He impugned the legacy of generations of immigrants to this country.

Just as a matter of interest...you might like to know...that 40% of foreign born Australians have a tertiary education - compared to 26% of Australian born.

Just saying...

ttbn,

"What do you mean by calling runner a 'faux Christian'? After rubbishing his Christian beliefs and Christianity in general at every opportunity..."

Firstly, can you link to the posts where I rubbish Christianity at every opportunity? (Thanks)

Secondly, I'm afraid dear old runner represents the antithesis of Christ-like rhetoric when he does his run-by comments on this forum. So excuse me if I refer to him as a faux-Christian, but I've yet to see him behave with any "Christian spirit" of the type we've been led to believe inhabits the good folk.

Yes Poirot,

That's why they are called skilled migrants

PS, I notice that Electricity Bill has had the good sense to realise that talking about illegal immigration wasn't doing him any good.

SM,

When all is said and done, what Dutton did last week was "throw a dead cat on the table". it's apparently an old Lyndon Crosby trick used before to great avail - and allows the thrower to disrupt the prevailing narrative and wrest it back.

So Dutton proves he's a bone-headed racist and does his party proud by giving us all something to talk about....pity their momentum was screwed up by the unprecedented election-timed AFP raid - set to damage the govt far more than the ALP...

"Lynton"...(grrr - typos!)

Yes,many migrants from many nations have contributed to this nation,
but they are past immigrants, who were from more civilsed and non fundamentalist
brainwashed societies.

Dutton in fact was being non racist in the sense that he didnt name the ethnic
groups he is referring to, who are very different from the groups that made a go of it in the past.

Some African groups such as those rioting and causing trouble in Melbourne recently
are the ones he is referring to and there is a particularl type of middle eastern group
and again African gangs in Germany,who seem more hellbent on causing trouble and not trying to get an education and a job to better themselves but want everything just handed to them and if they dont get it,they blame everyone else and riot and cause
trouble all the while crying oh poor me, you're not helping me enough.
They have never experienced the Western version of hardship and struggle, that is getting up everyday and going tonschool to get an education, then getting up every day
of your life to go to work to buy a home,car etc.

They have,lazed around the village minding a few goats,or something, but they think they can come into Western socities and get everything without putting in the lifetime of work that people in those societies do.

It is rubbish to say Peter Dutton is comparing them to past immigrants, who were prepared to get in and have a real go and make a good life for themselves, enriching the nation at the same time and we have those type of people coming in today too, but Peter Dutton is not referring to them, but he couldnt very well come out and say the ones he meant without
stigmatising the good people amongs these groups

Its been glaringly obvious from news reports lately just which young men in which groups fall into the category he means.

"They have,lazed around the village minding a few goats,or something, but they think they can come into Western socities and get everything without putting in the lifetime of work that people in those societies do."

Lol!...today's dose of mindless OLO bigotry is brought to by.....

Poirot,

You have certainly brought bigotry to the discussion which previously had nothing to do with race.

The skilled migrant population is mostly non european, but the liberals bring in more than labor, does that make labor and the unions racist?

Hi Poirot,

As usual, I agree with you that Jesus could have been a leftie, given many of the maxims attributed to him. As an atheist and post-marxist, of course I don't put much store in their actual provenance.

But I must say, in support of vour assertion, that the sentiments expressed in 'love thy neighbour', 'help strangers on the other side', 'turn the other cheek', etc. are immensely preferable to 'hack off their right arm and left leg', 'tear out the eyes of those who offend Allah, and of their children', 'cut off the fingers of unbelievers', 'stone women for a vast array of petty offences', 'look after only your own', etc. - clearly Christian precepts are more cosmopolitan and compassionate compared to the more tribal and backward set of values of Islam.

I'm sure that you would agree :)

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

Actually, I believe Jesus the Jew was directing other Jews to help their neighbours, etc.... ie. "other Jews".

Before Paul did a Bill Gates and made it all more accessible, following the teachings of Jesus was pretty much an in-house soiree.

Initially one was required to be a Jew to be included in the group - Paul cut out the middle-man - and then the Roman's got in on the act.

In any case, I haven't got time for mind forg'd guff of either variety.

Not really, Poirot: that Samaritan story for example: the Samaritans were an off-beat Jewish sect (they still exist in Israel, about 800 of them) so 'Jesus' (or whoever wrote up that parable) were broadening the notion of 'us' to extend beyond 'our pissy group alone', which is so characteristic of the narrow-minded, pig-ignorant tribal religions of the time, to a generalised 'other'.

In other words, the parable makes the point that strangers can have more compassion and decency than 'one's own'. That really was quite a remarkable viewpoint for the times - even for these times, and so easy to misinterpret, as - forgive me, Poirot - you have done.

Mind you, I think the story of the Good Samaritan is the most Marxist in the Bible. At least, that's how I've always thought that Marxists should behave. What do you reckon, Poirot ?

Cheers,

Joe

PS. BTT: Dutton's assertion tat refugees took jobs from Australians was a really stupid thing to say, BUT I think he was on firmer ground when he contradicted himself and said that refugees were far more likely to be on welfare five years after arrival, that they often arrived illiterate even in their own language, knew little or no English, and had no appropriate job skills. After all, this is not 1946 or 1950, when there was a wide range of infrastructure projects ready to employ hundreds of thousands of willing unskilled and semi-skilled migrant workers, people who built this country. Different ball-game now.

"In other words, the parable makes the point that strangers can have more compassion and decency than 'one's own'. That really was quite a remarkable viewpoint for the times - even for these times, and so easy to misinterpret, as - forgive me, Poirot - you have done."

How have I misinterpreted it.

Point being that Dutton's, runner's and many comments here display the polar opposite sentiment, ie....run around shouting the sky is falling and demonise the "other" - the stranger in their midst.

Yours is a perfect example of that kind of rhetoric, Joe...

I don't know how a person can become so deluded as you Poirot. Jesus teaching on loving one's neighbour and enemy has little to do with allowing mulitiudes of illegal immigrants to destroy your country. Please try a little honesty instead of self delusion.

Hi Poirot,

Well, yes,: if you can't see the difference between looking after only 'one's own', and being prepared to help strangers, then you really do need to re-read previous posts. Take your time, there are certainly some difficult concepts involved: tolerance versus intolerance, inclusiveness versus tribalist exclusion, civilization versus backwardness, Christianity versus Islamism.

As for Dutton, as I understand it, he is not saying that we shouldn't be taking any refugees - he hasn't said anything against the current (or projected future) intake - just that they may be very expensive to integrate into the Australian economy and society, which is probably incontrovertible.

Personally, I would be more comfortable with larger intakes, particularly if they are targeted to include the most oppressed, say the Yazidis, Assyrians and Chaldeans, and any Jews who may still remain in Muslim countries, Rohingya from Burma, Muslims from Ethiopia and Christians from Eritrea.

But to reiterate, Dutton's remark about refugees taking jobs was stupid, brainless.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouyh,

"Well, yes,: if you can't see the difference between looking after only 'one's own', and being prepared to help strangers..."

Well...hohoho!...coming from someone who takes every opportunity to toot his particular brand of "Watch out, folks - they're a threat"..that's quite amusing.

Yes, Dutton's comment was stupid and brainless - but so are all of his comments.

As Dutton's comments were correct, that would make any comments to the contrary stupid and brainless.

SM,

Dutton says that not only will they languish on the dole - they'll take your jobs as well!

He's pretty sharp is young Peter...

ROFL!

Hi Poirot,

When have I ever supported your assertion: " .... coming from someone who takes every opportunity to toot his particular brand of "Watch out, folks - they're a threat"..that's quite amusing." ?

Certainly I've tried to point out the reactionary nature of Islam, its tribal roots, its deadening circular arguments, certainly its misogyny, contempt for labour and reliance on others - slavery in the old days, and, well, slavery in more recent times, its barrenness of enquiry, its lack of contribution to human knowledge and parasitism on the knowledge of others such as Greeks and Indians - don't get me started. i.e. I'm concerned to condemn the ideological underpinnings and teachings of backward religions like Islam: it's probably the Marxist still in me :) Christ, read what Marx wrote in his Notes on Indian History (i.e. Mughal History).

I've defended the right of Muslim women to wear what they like, out of sympathy for what they have to tolerate under the demands of patriarchal systems, and I'll defend the rights of Hazara and Rohingya and Ethiopian Muslims to come to Australia as migrants and refugees. In other words, I'm happy to defend Muslims' human rights, as per Australian principles, and equality of all before the same rule of law.

So if an ad hominem is all you've got, I'd suggest that you've run out of puff, Poirot. Bullying is not possible on-line, sweetie, so there's really no point trying it.

Cheers and sympathies,

Joe

Poirot.

you see the tribal poverty in those wartorn African areas like sudan and Libya
where a lot of these immigrants are coming from.

They certainly dont have jobs, because there arent any,in a lot of cases.
Therefore they are not prepared for life in Western countries.

Peter Dutton would have seen the statistics for unemployment figures and lack of
a schooling background in groups in this country, so he would know what he was
talking about.
Those crying down what he said, have no factual information about the uneducated,
lifetime,unemployed single males that are coming into Western countries so their
comments are based on emotional hysteria and not fact.

Also, the unemployment in Lebanon is very high, I remember watching a documentary
on Tv about it a few months ago. I forget the exact percentage but I think it was around
the halfway mark and up. So they dont work,they just hang around.

Cherful,

Here is the opening line to this thread:

"The Greens and Labor are screeching that Dutton should be punished for claiming that many immigrants by boat are illiterate and largely unemployable..."

Most who come "by boat" are from the middle-east or south-east Asia.

Why you singling out immigrants from Sudan and other African nations? They don't come by boat seeking asylum. They come through refugee camps in our annual intake.

Those who come aren't coming because they wish to take our jobs or live off our largesse - in many cases they're fleeing Western bombs. You know how the West makes a killing (excuse the pun) from selling arms to murderous regimes and other groups.

"Peter Dutton would have seen the statistics for unemployment figures and lack of
a schooling background in groups in this country, so he would know what he was
talking about.
Those crying down what he said, have no factual information about the uneducated,
lifetime,unemployed single males that are coming into Western countries so their
comments are based on emotional hysteria and not fact."

Like this guy?

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/sudanese-refugee-lauded-by-mike-baird-withdraws-his-support-for-liberals-over-peter-duttons-asylum-seeker-comments-20160520-gozpli.html

Thanks for your contribution, Cherful....just one more example of the scintillating midgetry on offer on this forum.

Loudmouth,

"So if an ad hominem is all you've got, I'd suggest that you've run out of puff, Poirot. Bullying is not possible on-line, sweetie, so there's really no point trying it."

You really are something special, Joe.

You spend many hours verbally bashing Duncan Storrar on the other thread (because he asked a question)...completely ignoring the relevance of his question - instead trashing him shamelessly up and down the thread.

And now you're squealing because someone critiqued your brand of debate.

Golly gosh! - here's a guy who can dish it out but can't take it.

But don't let me keep you on this thread. I'm sure you're champing at the bit to get back to putting the boot into Storrar.

It's even easier to ignore his point and pour ad hom onto Duncan - he's not here to defend himself.

Which would suit a bully, the likes of you just fine.

Cheers - sweetie!

Parrot,

Once again you uncritically echo left whinge propaganda, without realising how stupid it is.

The majority will languish on the dole, but the small number that do get jobs will mostly get menial jobs. Forming their own "businesses" they will not be constrained by the minimum wage and be able to work for less, in the segment of the job industry where there is a dire shortage of work.

Hi Poirot,

'Squealing' ? Moi ? I'm a Bankstown boy, we never squeal, we just cop it. Squealment is foreign to our nature. I'm an anti-squealer and as a post-Marxist, I'm totally opposed to squealism.

I'll leave that up to lumpens like Duncan with his 'Why not me ?! What about my share ?! Is it my fault that I haven't paid tax for years, and therefore can't get a tax cut ?! Poor me !' which has beautifully suckered in the OppLeft :)

Still, as my dear old refined English grandmother would have said, you can't polish a turd and, after all, he's one of your turds, Poirot. You're stuck with him.

Yep, you can take the boy out of Bankstown ....

Unless you drag him up again from the slime, I won't ever refer to him again, sweetie. Life's too short.

See ? Bullying DOESN'T work on-line. Try reasoning, honey, you'll find it's more fun than slagging.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

"'Squealing' ? Moi ? I'm a Bankstown boy, we never squeal, we just cop it. Squealment is foreign to our nature. I'm an anti-squealer and as a post-Marxist, I'm totally opposed to squealism."

Snort!....

But the pièce de résistance is your well-worn tactic, when you've run out of argument, to pull out "sweetie"...of course only when you're debating a female.

I was expecting it - and then right on cue - Loudmouth deploys his white flag.

..and then keeps waving it about because he thinks it's kinda impressive.

What a man!

Cheers....

Hi Poirot,

Yep, sooner or later, the gender card. But I thought that gender was a fluid concept, that 'what it is to be a man' or what it is to be a woman' were negotiable, not fixed and antithetical, as you assume ? So twentieth century, Poirot ! Keep up, honey !

To be honest, I really do mean those terms of endearment, since I see you and me as on similar trajectories, from rock-solid Marxism to some sort of common sense. I've gone further down that road, being so much older - there's fifty years I'll never get back - but it's all experience, as the prostitute said to Craig Thomson. I wish you the best travelling on that road. Just be careful who you travel with.

Cheers,

Joe

Wow!...

"honey" now!

I think you should continue with this strategy - after all none of the other fellas on OLO resort to gender-targeted patronisation...maybe they could learn something?

"To be honest, I really do mean those terms of endearment..."

Hilarious!

You really mean them as patronising sexist put-downs (deployed when you've got nothing left in the larder) - that's what you mean.

The fact that you only pull them out when you're debating women is the telling principle here.

It's pathetic...but do carry on.

It's saying a lot more about you than it is about moi.

Hi Poirot,

Strangely, I use those terms of endearment because I like you, even if you are a bit of rat-bag. Like me, I suppose, and on the same journey. Okay, I'll stop.

BTT, if it's okay with you: Peter Dutton. What he said. About refugees taking jobs (utterly ridiculous). About refugees being illiterate, often in their own language (probably true in some cases). About 10 % of male refugees and 20 % of female refugees never having been to school (true, measurable), and how long, and how much expense, it may take to bring them up to speed, if ever (also measurable).

We can't solve the world's problems for every country which mistreats its own people. Education in, say, Afghanistan is so abysmal, but that really is primarily Afghanistan's problem, not ours. How it treats its women is an indictment on its culture, not ours. We should do what we can, but ultimately it's their own struggle.

On the other side of the balance-sheet, of course we should take decent numbers of refugees once they have properly applied and gone through the usual bureaucratic jungle, like everybody else. Ideally, they shouldn't be coming in leaky boats after paying exorbitant fees, as the Greens would prefer. God knows why.

I suppose it's because, if they came here in seaworthy boats after paying standard commercial fares, someone would ask: "Then why not let them fly here, it's quicker and less risky ? Why boats ? Let them fly in from anywhere to here ?"

And why limit it to refugees ? Why not economic migrants, fleeing for a better economic life ? Australia's a big country. Half a billion from India, half a billion from China, no worries.

Any answers, Poirot ? No ? Never mind, feel free to vent :)

Cheers,

Joe

the less the left have to offer the angrier and louder they get before pulling the victimisation card.

Loudmouth,

"Then why not let them fly here, it's quicker and less risky ? Why boats ? Let them fly in from anywhere to here"

But they do fly in...they're already flying in and applying for asylum.

For instance, in 2011-12 there were over 7,000 applications for asylum by Irregular Maritime Arrivals - or IMAs (people who came by boat). In that same period there were over 7,000 applications for asylum by non-IMAs (people who came by air).

Notwithstanding that this govt has for all intents and purposes stopped the boats that come from reaching our shores, one imagines that there are still thousands of applications per annum for asylum from non-IMAs.

http://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/asylum-trends-aus-annual-2011-12.pdf

I don't see you or the usual suspects here - or Peter Dutton, for that matter - waving your arms in outrage over that.

It's all saved for the boat people, which turns out to be a nice little vote puller for the major parties - being that Aussies are particularly insular and fearful souls.

Hi Poirot,

Australia has a migrant intake, and a refugee intake. Refugees apply and may or may not be a part of the annual intake. There are more than fifty million refugees and displaced persons in the world. I take it for granted that many apply to come to Australia. Presumably, if they fly to Australia without having had their applications approved, they are put on the next plane back. I think we are agreed there.

My point was: that if it is okay to come to Australia by leaky boat after paying exorbitant fees, then why leaky boats ? Why not seaworthy boats ? Why not after paying commercial fares ? Why not flying ? Whoever wants to come ?

There is a quota. I think it should be lifted, but there you go. Anybody trying to come illegally by boat will be turned back. If you feel that they SHOULD come and that nobody should be turned back, re-read that last paragraph a few times.

So I'm not sure why I'm supposed to wave my arms about. Maybe I'm a completely heartless bastard ? YES/NO

Joe

Loudmouth,

"My point was: that if it is okay to come to Australia by leaky boat after paying exorbitant fees, then why leaky boats ? Why not seaworthy boats ? Why not after paying commercial fares ? Why not flying ? Whoever wants to come ?"

I just explained to you that in 2011-12 there were over 7,000 applications for asylum from people who originally flew into Australia (non-IMAs)

These were not people who flew in and were immediately turned around and flown out of the country.

Students accounted for 47% of the applications.

You are suggesting that people who wish to apply for asylum should come by means other than leaky boats.

My point is that they already do.

Hi Poirot,

Yes, of course, refugees who are part of our annual intake should be able to fly here after paying standard commercial fees. And I think that the intake should be higher.

But with respect, you may have missed my point. I'm presuming that you think that refugees who arrive here by leaky boat etc., should be given asylum ? Don't turn back the boats ? My string of questions then suggests that, if this is the case,

(1) why by leaky boats ?

I'm fairly sure that you would agree that, if refugees should be allowed to settle in Australia if they arrive in leaky boats, they should also be allowed to settle in Australia if they come by quite seaworthy boats.

And if by seaworthy boats, perhaps overseen by Australian maritime authorities in Indonesia,

(2) why should they have to pay exorbitant fees to smugglers ? Why not allow them to settle after paying standard commercial fees ? Why force them to pay exorbitant fees to smugglers ?

And if they can settle in Australia after coming here by seaworthy boats after paying standard fees,

(3) why should they have to come by boat ? Why not take anybody in who can fly here ?

(4) From anywhere ?

Can you see the progressive shift: once one supports the notion that people can come here without papers etc. on leaky boats, after paying exorbitant fees to smugglers - that why not fly here on commercial rates from anywhere ?

Maybe I'm just too thick, but this seems to be the logical outcome of allowing illegal entry. Please correct me where I've gone wrong.

Cheers,

Joe

Loudmouth,

Yes, you are acting "a bit thick".

I'm not referring to "refugees" which are part of our intake.

They've already been processed and are accepted on the basis of that processing.

I'm referring to people who originally enter this country by air and at some point after apply for asylum...as I pointed out, in 2011-12 over 7,000 applications were made on that basis.

Again - they do fly here...and we don't hear a peep about them from the likes of you because your argument with "asylum seekers" is apparently only concerned with the ones who come by boat...the rest are invisible. Why don't you shriek about the non-IMAs?

Now I'd like to continue to play your silly game of twenty questions but I have better things to do...it's pretty boring having you repeat the same inane questions over and over again.

Loudy,

You've got Pirouette's bottom lip all a'quiver.

Don't expect him/her to follow the inevitable path of Green logic. It's a no go area in the mental schema, running headlong into the notion that any IMA should expect Australian citizenship if deemed a refugee.

There are no limits on immigration into Oz, be it by IMA or being drawn from UN refugee camps globally. You just don't get it, Loudy, there is no queue, and shame on you for concocting one!

Redneck eejut!

What Poirot and other left whingers suffer group amnesia over is that the vast majority of those flying in and applying for asylum are deported immediately and declared persona non grata as their passports and other documents required to enter the country make it impossible to fabricate a story of woe and persecution, whereas those flying in from Sri Lanka and Iran to Indonesia, then taking a boat are able to destroy their documents.

"What Poirot and other left whingers suffer group amnesia over is that the vast majority of those flying in and applying for asylum are deported immediately and declared persona non grata as their passports and other documents required to enter the country make it impossible to fabricate a story of woe and persecution..."

Thanks for the expertise, SM.

Regarding non-IMAs:

"There were 5792 applications considered and decided in the first instance by officials in 2011-12.."

Grants - 1467

Refusals - 4325

Primary grant rate was 25.3% (non-IMAs)

"Asylum seekers arriving by air whose applications have been refused may appeal to the Refugee Review Tribunal. In 2011-12, nearly 90 per cent of refused applicants sought such review, a rate that has been
largely constant for the past half decade."

Final decisions overall:

In 2011-12 there were 5159 Protection visa applications finally determined following a primary decision,
review by the RRT and/or consideration by the courts
.
The average final grant rate in 2011-12 remained steady at 44 per cent."

http://www.border.gov.au/ReportsandPublications/Documents/statistics/asylum-trends-aus-annual-2011-12.pdf

Considering these applications were not only processed in the first instance, but many also reviewed - it's pretty clever of Australian authorities to do all that in the short time it takes to immediately deport someone who has just entered the country.

How about a bit of due diligence, SM....you're a great one for sounding like you know what your're talking about only to construct your argument on thin air.

Here's another:

"....whereas those flying in from Sri Lanka and Iran to Indonesia, then taking a boat are able to destroy their documents."

Erm....Iran topped the list for applications being granted to "non-IMAs" in 2011-12 with 351 grants and 22 refusals.

.....

Luciferase still has his nose out of joint because Poirot preferred the opinions of economists to that of a self-interested negative-gearer who made a profit from a tax break.

Hi Poirot,

There is a migrant intake. There is a refugee intake, and presumably most of those come by plane rather than leaky boat.

The argument is about refugees coming without authorisation, i.e. part of that intake, by leaky boat.

So it's a simple question: do you agree that people coming by leaky boat without authorisation, i.e. not being part of the annual intake ?

Yes/No.

If yes, then see questions (1-4) above.

I hope this clears the matter up for you.

Cheers,

Joe

Parrot,

Firstly, the stats you show are from 2011/2 5 yrs ago and under an incompetent government, even then the acceptance rate of non illegal maritime arrivals was at 44% about half the acceptance of illegal maritime arrivals > 80%.

However, the statistics are that most refugees are unemployed even after 5 yrs (about 30%) and are a drain on the economy.

"Luciferase still has his nose out of joint because Poirot preferred the opinions of economists to that of a self-interested negative-gearer who made a profit from a tax break."

Nobody makes a profit from from NG. It is not a concession, a subsidy or a rort, but don't let truth get in the way of a good mantra.

Your remark, albeit inappropriate to this thread, allows comparison with the fact you won't commit to whether IMAs deemed refugees should displace other prospective immigrants (including refugees overseas), with, whether operating losses should be quarantined from determining taxable income.

In both cases you deny the obvious consequences of such woolly Green thinking, being, Australia will have borders completely open to peaceful invasion, and, we will be reduced to a socialist state where risk and loss are carried by the individual but profit is shared with those not carrying that burden.

One great big beautiful melting pot, eh?

Poirot

The main cause of all the refugees and wars in these countris is not so much
caused by American bombs as tribal hatreds and warlords stealing women, territory
and resources. Boko Harem to name one.

The male ignorance and dominance that doesnt allow women control over their own wombs so they end up with a10kids to feed, and then think Australia and Western countries should bail them out and feed the resultl of their stupidity with 7billion people on earth and rising.

I know the African fellow of which you speak, I saw his talk on TV and I did admire the way he worked and studied to become a lawyer, but thats where my admiration ended, because what did he do with his lawyer abilities,
He promptly became a lawyer trying to fight to bring more refugees in here.

In other words he is now throwing his weight around trying to bring as many of his tribe here as he can. He has not become a lawyer to in anyway serve Australia.
only other tribes from overseas, particularly Africans I'm sure.

70% of Australians were against the mass immigration that was allowed bigtime with the Hawke government and successive governments but those governments went ahead and did it anyway. So it was hardly a democratic decision based on the will of the Australian people. There shouldnt be any surprise now at the back lash coming from people who never were allowed a referendum on it in the first place

Big timing themselves in the United Nations signed that refugee agreement, again an undemocratic decision, one which I shouok my head at, and thought I dont want them signing that in my name.

let the idiot male leaders in these troubled countries, figure out why their people are so bloody, miserable, full of hatred and always at each others throats. Not our problem.
Posted by CHERFUL, Wednesday, 25 May 2016 2:03:32 PM

SM,

"Firstly, the stats you show are from 2011/2 5 yrs ago and under an incompetent government, even then the acceptance rate of non illegal maritime arrivals was at 44% about half the acceptance of illegal maritime arrivals > 80%."

Yes, if you'd noted earlier, my point was that over 7,000 applications were made from non-IMAs in 2011-12 - and that although IMAs were now being turned around, flown back or refouled - there are no doubt still applications from non-IMAs...and that all the anti-boat crew around here never mention those applications.

Btw, the percentage of IMAs found after processing to be genuine refugees was more like 94%.

Cherful,

"In other words he is now throwing his weight around trying to bring as many of his tribe here as he can. He has not become a lawyer to in anyway serve Australia.
only other tribes from overseas, particularly Africans I'm sure."

Lol!...not even worth a reply.

Can I just say that it's always instructive debating the mature men of OLO.

No sooner has Loudmouth acquiesced to ceasing his "sweetie" and "honey"...than along come the next two adolescent chappies with "Pirouette" and "Parrot".

Which, I s'pose would be considered really clever if we were a bunch of 12 year-olds.

Hi Poirot,

Sorry, that sentence should have read:

"The argument is about refugees coming without authorisation, i.e. NOT part of that intake, by leaky boat."

Still waiting for your answer to the question "Do you support taking in refugees who arrive here without authorisation but by leaky boat, after paying exorbitant fees to smugglers ?"

Yes/No

But obfuscation and diversion, the wounded swan act, will tell us a lot about you, yet again. Entertain us :)

Joe

Blow it out yer ear, Loudmouth.

I've done my quota of conversing with sad act immature men for this month.

Cheers....

..and with that, he/she pirouettes and exits the stage, but not before parroting the party line and leaving many questions unanswered on this thread.

Hack.

Alas ! The swan exits Left, dying, to Spike Jones' 'Swan lake', leaving the question:

Yes/No

which lingers, and lingers .....

Hi Poirot,

No rush :) Whenever you get back, the questions will still be there.

On the other hand, you could try diversion, side-tracks, red herrings or even a good straw-man. Talk about Nauru, Manus island, that sort of thing. Compare the fascist Turnbull regime to the Nazis.

Or you could call Turnbull or Dutton or Abbott childish names: Turnbullion, Dutton the Dill, Abbott the Rabbit. Gosh, that's so clever, so funny, so conclusive - if people can have funny nick-names, that shows how bad they are.

Or you could confront realities, and answer those questions - I know that's not popular on the Opportunist Left, but you never know till you give it a go :)

Joe

SM and Loudmouth,
You blokes should read Poirots link on page 10. She was talking about those that arrive legally and then later apply for a 'protection visa'. The link does contain much info, some with not a lot of value but some interesting stuff as well.

In 2011-2012 roughly there were the same number of PV applicants that arrived here legally as there were illegals. Interestingly about half the legal arrivals were students. So they apply for protection and as they are here already they have nothing to lose and everything to gain. Legal arrivals are NOT in detention whilst their application is processed.

The initial success rate for legal arrivals is 25% and after review is 44%. With about 7300 per year applying it seems to me that this area needs tightening up as it now is a back door immigration scheme for students. Dutton could well look hard at this.

For illegals (boat people) the initial success rate is 71% and after review is 82%. One can see why they take the risk of sea.

I am a bit disappointed that arrivals religion is not shown for any arrivals so one can only guess by the country of origin.

Banjo,

The final approval rate of illegal arrivals is closer to 98% as unresolved cases are not taken as accepted. This is mainly due to a judicial system that leans towards acceptance, and with boat arrivals destroying their documentation, their acceptance is far higher than plane arrivals.

SM,
The doc that Poirot linked to and I quoted from is a DIAC doc.

I think I have seen higher figures before but those are the ones quoted for 2011-2012. If you can find other figures that are different then the DIAC must be wrong. I don't know who else would have correct figures.

For me, it means that student applications for protection visas should be looked at far more closely. In fact I do not think we are near stringent enough with all applications for protection. I understand we are nowhere near as tough as the UN in granting refugee status.

We have stopped the illegals from coming by boat and now we need to look at other ways some people are taking advantage of our good and trusting nature.

There will always be some who want to rort the system and take advantage of any weakness.

Banjo,

I have read the document and do not disagree with it. I was merely pointing out that due to the length of time taken to resolving legal appeals, that the 18% of illegals that had not been granted asylum were likely to still be pending.