Australia, the UN, and Refugees

He misses the point as do most people who lean to the left. We only have to look at the situation in Europe during WW2 to define what a refugee fleeing for his life and taking along his family and any other possession they can carry is. Or Vietnam.

Most of the ones coming by boat from Islamic countries are not actually fitting that definition. Because most of the boat arrivals have been males - only a very few women and children - and once they have established themselves and given permanent residence and following citizenship after 2 years they immediately send for the rest of their family waiting safe at home.

Now during the war no one was left behind as not safe and if being persecuted as an individual and not just killed en masse, all family members and not just immediate were subject to arrest etc.

It is this difference that stands out and makes these people what the I and the Indonesians say too, economic migrants seeking a better life.
And we are a target more than any other country in the region for these families as they have very much larger ones than westerners do, and our welfare system pays more for every child as the family grows and of course currently $5,425 for ever newborn, stillborn or adopted child into the family. Therefore making it very attractive to people who come from a poor country without welfare and many will not need to work as the Centrelink payments outdo any monies a man can earn if unskilled as most of there people are. Plus we aid their ideology on the question of taking more than one wife - because it is allowed as long as the man can keep them and Centrelink sees to that too. Plus a bonus is they get a house for each wife. And one for the old man.

My point is this if we have governments panicking because we have an aging population then why bring in people who, naturally human nature and monetary matters dictate, will stay on welfare, creating what we already have with previous migrants - whole generations living off welfare adding to the welfare burden.


The Idea is to bring in skilled migrants who will work from day one and pay their taxes helping out revenue which pays for services not burdening it. Lifting the ratio of worker to pensioner or welfare recipient higher to support these outgoings.

Ok fine to take in genuine refugees but they do need to be the right kind who appreciate the chance to work and become part of society and add value to the community.


Meanwhile when the boats were stopped by Howard, he brought in 13,500 mainly Burmese refugees who really are fleeing a harsh regime - that being one years target. Now do we hear problems with these people from Burma? They must simply have settled in got jobs and worked their butts off as most people do once accepted and assimilated so deep we don't see them at all.

Boat arrivals have all been mainly Muslims who tell us outright they have no intention of assimilating into our society as not good enough and needs changing to suit them or Sri Lankans who also were offered a house and job in India, far closer than Australia during their civil war which has now ended. But no welfare in India - so some headed here and hijacked an Aussie ship and many also had the cheek to phone Australia after pulling the **** plug in old boats so they sink and saying come and get us. Demanding asylum.

It is these attitudes that has made many Australians want the whole thing stopped altogether and for us to chose who comes here to live.

Julia Gillard could have stopped the boats immediately by simply reverting back to the TPV's but no Rudd along with her turned the whole thing around and started the smuggling by making all of those living here protected under the TPV's by Howard - permanent residents in place of TP/Visa so now they can become citizens and bring in the families back home and do and will. Why not!

That being the whole point of the exercise to pay smugglers large fees and cost of staying in Indonesia whilst waiting on top of commercial airfares to get there from home countries - most have the family put money in the pot to achieve this end. All living in Australia where they can live well and never work again in many cases. Like the statistics put out by the Bureau of Statistics saying that 83% of these arrivals from Irag, Iran and Pakistan are still on the dole after 5 years, and 93% of those from Afghanistan.

John Howard said we need to choose who comes to live here and he was right but he didn't give our notice to the UN so that we could chose those who want to settle in and work because whilst we are a signatory we have to use their benchmarks which are failing us. And the on.y way we can chose it by looking at who came and where from and how well they settled as a nationality or country or ideology take your pick on that but these records are available just not public because of the lefts demonization of anyone even daring to ask by naming them a racist when in fact we are the most tolerant people on earth and have no race card to play but have it used against us in our own countries all the time and who issued it - the left.

how-to-choose-better-immigrants

Things are problematic all over the west with migration not just here but Britain France Germany Italy and so on and it has to be addressed.

Remember this adage.
Those who ignore the lessons of history are bound to repeat them.

Arguing constantly about illegal or legal and semantics does not solve anything the problem is there address it.

This was The Lucky Country and can be again but we need to become as we once were Australians and New Australians and forget this failed multiculturalism not put it back together as Gillard has just done.

We must pull together not in different directions because we are told that Multi-cult is okay it simply encourages division.

 

Yes - because Iraq and Afghanistan are peaceful, happy places.

 

Marsbarkid,
there are some valid points to your quote, however a crucial point is missing (at least for me):
Refugees out of war stricken zones, such as Iraq, should be welcomed in Australia, as we do have the responsibility to take them on, after (*)(*)(*)(*)ing up their country.
Not that difficult to understand. Since the Iraq war, 500.000 Christians had to flee in order not to be killed. The remaining 500.000 will follow, just a question of time.
Sadam was a bastard, but at least some minorities had a life (although I am aware not all of them).
Just watched on ABC 24, that countries opposed to the Iraq War like France and Germany take more refugees from Iraq as compared to us, namely Australia, who is coresponsible for the coward war.
While you are right that some refugees are seeking for a better life in terms of economics, it should not allow us to justify sending people back, who are unable to proof their circumstances behind any doubt.
Cheers

 

The problem I have is they leave the warzone long before they get to Australia. If they are genuine refugees why dont they apply for refugee status at their first safe destination.... well the answer is because they intend to pay money to finance criminal people smuggling so they can bypass border protection laws to enter Australia illegally.

I dont know where their journey's take them, but I'm guessing they get to India (nice and safe, even for muslims) - WHY DONT THEY STAY THERE? At this point they are not real refugee's anymore IMO because they are safe.

Then catch a boat to Malaysia, Thailand or Indonesia (all very nice and safe for muslims), WHY DONT THEY STAY THERE? At this point they have not been real refugee's for awhile because they are safe.

Then catch another boat to try and reach Australia. I agree with MarsBarKid.

All these journeys take lots of time, lots of money (I thought they were refugees!?), and breaking lots of laws in various countries..... simply to sneak into Australia at the cost of the;
1. genuinely poor refugee's,
2. the lives of those who die in transit,
3. the victims of the criminals they finance, and
4. the Australian taxpayer in lots of different ways.

I gotta stop writing lists in this thread LOL

 

axialturban,
I guess there is so much to your opinion as there is to mine. I do understand what your are saying, and to some extent you are right.
However, coming back to Iraq, without that stupid war most of the Iraqi people wouldn't need to flee their country....

 

I have no problem with taking in Christians who are being persecuted in every single Muslim country as refugees if they apply.

Have you noticed that they don't actually arrive illegally by boat and why? Because being a persecuted minority with no safe guards they simply do not have enough money so when they do flee they are genuine refugees and we should take them before Muslims who are not persecuted for being Muslims in a Muslim country at all because against the whole teachings of Mohammed. We should be able to choose who comes here and take in as many refugees as possible without lowering the standard of living for the working Australians who make it all possible. And so encourage those who will assimilate and work themselves to help the community and bring in more in need of safe haven.

And in order to do that have to give our 12 months notice to the UN which wont happen with Labor who are - well Rudd is anyway - currently spending million or so on trying to get a seat on the Security Council along with other third world countries which will have no say at all in any decisions as just a sop the the third world members and why oh why are Labor being hoodwinked thinking it is prestigious.

Most of our problems currently are because of UN treaties.

The Rights of the Child also is a huge problematic one which has resulted in children out of control because they cannot be disciplined by their parents who lost these rights and also by schools and the government has to pay 'running away from home allowances' so many of the problems being reported came back to this stupid treaty which is not at all for anything other than to create chaos in first world countries and allow Law and Order to break down as is happening to the point that an outcry for it brings OWG - unrest throughout the world currently with all of their own governments is an outcome of these 2 treaties causing problems immigration and childrens upbringing. All of course predicated on the manifesto of the communists in 1917 in Moscow to stop the men joining up to fight for their countries. And they decided that starting with educating the children and making dysfunctional families where many no longer have both parents was the lodestone on which to achieve their final outcomes.

Neither of which is being addressed by our politicians who are stuck with AGW which is a scam and strutting the world stage
and filling the hole created by wasting so much money since 2007 that new taxes have to be created any which way they can.

Meanwhile 700 more illegal arrivals, mainly Muslims, have arrived by boat this month, 4 boats this week and all will eventually get in under UN criteria at the cost of processing $90,000 per person and then a house welfare and all that follows.

All getting what they seek in front of our own people who face even longer waiting lists for elective surgery in every state for lack of money not to mention other services in trouble plus shortages of public housing already having lists which grow for Aussies with each one allocated to an incoming so called refugee and more to arrive once they are able to access family reunion having being granted citizenship far too early and too easily.


And those who quote most Aussies are happy with these people arriving lately and not fitting it at all are simply lying or lacing in the top paddock or short of working brain cells or brain washed lefties or all of the above. Take your pick

 

Oh great... now the thread is degrading into racist (or "religionist"... whatever) drivel and "left bashing". Fantastic.

A Christian is not necessarily "more deserving" than a Muslim, or anyone else.

Wealth has nothing to do with persecution.

I think the way that the UN operates on some things is quite dubious, especially all this nonsense about effectively buying votes for the UN security council. People think the FIFA selection process was corrupt, that ain't nothing compared to the UN security council election.

Anyway, imo the UN agreement is too broad and with exponential population growth and a state of perpetual warfare it's not practical or realistic and amounts to little more than an open borders/unofficial migration stream.

The UN should be doing more to make states accountable for the welfare and rights of their people instead of just having this loose agreement for mass relocation. But they seem pretty pathetically incapable of achieving much of anything.

Was impressed to see the Arab league put pressure on Syria btw. Good stuff.

We must get enough onshore asylum seekers now that the UN process is pretty well defunct as we fill our "quota" without actually needing to be allocated any refugees from the UNHCR program.

 

Next time I visit my Dad (95) and his mates at the "Seniors" I will give them the choice of what you say they are, I am sure they will be offended as I am.

I am happy to help any genuine refugee.
I am not lying and take offence at that implication.
I am not lacking in "the top paddock" as you say. I have a degree in human anatomy, biochemistry and histology, a diploma in 4GL programming and have taught programming and year 10 science at TAFE and have worked in senior management in health for the past 15 years.
I am not brainwashed nor a lefty, so guess what,

WRONG on all accounts

 

Why do I lose posts here when I am told I am not logged in on replying?

Anyway short and sweet now as in a hurry - sorry if I offended you DS with my post.

I cannot think why you took it personally.

My general expression re left wingers was not intended for anyone to take personally unless of course it hit home.

Not so sure about your Dad - he being born between the wars like my mine - may well have a different opinion to many others - human nature dictates - but most Seniors who have experienced wars and woes in the world and not just focused on Australia - - are not pleased at all with the way things have been going on this immigration front. Dont forget most of these Seniors were either in WW2 or back home keeping the home fires burning something many today have no idea of as always been handed everything on a plate if born in the last say 25-30 years as living standards improved along with wages and technology.

They worked all their lives and were told pay your income tax and your pension will be there for you and of course under the 1909 pension act they were paying 7% levy towards that pension - until in 1950 Menzies had an eye on the then amount of money lying idle in the Pension fund and shifted it over to General Revenue along with the regulation on the income tax levy and so when they repealed the Pension Act in 1985 that same levy continued on as it does today. So all who work still pay in for their age pension. Confirmed by Howard when he said of SFR they have paid for their pension so are entitled to the concessions even if not drawing it. Couldn't if they had more income than the means tested pension allows. Mind you he had to qualify this remark later.
But it did prove to me anyway - what that Treasury Official said about the levy simply carrying on.

Yes and it has wandered off the UN and refugees a bit but then it is all entangled you see because the reason why the aged pensioners are being kept on a well below poverty level pension and Labor, Rudd and Gillard in particular, wouldn't give the married age pensioners the $30 rise was lack of money to put into the pot and why?

Well of course at the time 1.5 billion had had to be spent on the stream of smuggled incoming people seeking asylum as refugees under the UN Treaty - and of course naturally when they rescinded the very legislation that kept the boats from coming - putting Christmas Island back into to Australian territory for this purpose and giving all of those who were on TPV's safe but had to go home once the civil problem there was resolved permanent residence followed in time by citizenship and family reunions - then instead of just being a political move - saying look here we can and will overturn what Howard thought was a big historical event - instead they got the big A and it turned into a debacle as does most of what Labor these days tries to do for political points.

Labor have spent more than several billions now after close to 4 years of boat arrivals and the damage caused by their riots and violent attacks when they were not processed fast enough even though being paid 89% of the dole etc.

700 more illegal boat arrivals this month alone will cost the taxpayer $90,000 a person to process and make even more inroads on the budget which is short of money due to Labor's usual incompetence on the handling of our money and this will hurt all Aussies so why oh why does Gillard not bite the bullet and do what is necessary - Nauru TPV's immediately for anyone not yet accepted and voila - boats stopped - money saved for hospital and other needs for the whole population.

But politics come before the Nation and its good - shame on her.

 

What I meant was, is that my Dad and most of the seniors I spoke to in the small NSW town they live in believe we should help refugees. My father manages well on his pension, the government pension, but then he owns a house, something I don't think my grandchildren will ever do if we keep going this way.

Actually I have taken a mud pole, something I am constantly doing much to my partners dismay. I ask nearly everyone I see several questions.

The only people I have found that do not want the refugees are those with racial undertones or those that listen to the radio jocks and scare mongers.

 

I know it's expensive to process the refugees, it costs us nearly as much each year to process them then we gamble on the Melbourne cup.

 

Its more then just processing, the costs of running all the ships and aircraft up there to try and pick them up as soon as possible etc. Not to mention the loss of the lives when it goes wrong, many times I bet we never hear about.

 

What I meant was, we say we cannot afford it but look at this ...

That is also well above the estimated $762 million the government spent this financial year.

Estimated costs for 2012/13 and 2013/14 are also up significantly, to $677 million and $401 million, respectively.

Overall, the government has budgeted $2.5 billion for managing boat arrivals over the next four years
http://news.theage.com.au/breaking-news-national/govt-confirms-detention-cost-blowout-20110510-1ehae.html

YET


The figures are mind-boggling. In 2006-07, the latest data available, Australians lost $18billion gambling, about $12bn of that drained from purses and wallets by pokies
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/features/a-nation-on-the-punt/story-e6frg6z6-1225791482122

So I don't see how we CAN"T afford them!

 

Yea I agree we arent broke..... yet.

But isnt that individual wealth being lost, not national wealth - I mean do casino's pay taxes on winnings/profit etc? Its just a normal transaction in the entertainment industry isnt it.

 

We are not that far off being broke. Not because we are taking in refugees however, it's our fascination with credit. Just about every store gives 12 - 24 - 36 months interest free and I think our personal debt is about 30k per person.

We waste more food, land, cloths, electrical goods etc then just about any other country. We buy 4 million mobile phones a year, what do we do with them all. When a new model comes out, we stick the old one in a drawer and buy a new one. We gamble billions yet we say we can't afford anything.

We can't help those in need, refugees, the homeless, our Indigenous etc because we can't afford it. True, not if we keep up this unsustainable spending and credit splurge.

Why do they come, because the poorest here would be wealthy in most other places. Most of us came here for the same reasons, to seek a new life in a great country.

 

Legally I hope

 

Well I was born here, not sure about my ancestry, I'm adopted but I have kind of determined it is of English and Italian descent.

Look I like having the bountiful country, I love the idea that my children will never want for much. I am against things that are illegal, things that harm others and against a welfare society, all of the usual stuff.

I also see some that are truly in need and if some sneak past that should not be here, yes that is bad, but I am not willing to put out the majority of genuine refugees just to stop the few that shouldn't come.

I think that we, the public of Australia are doing the most harm. If we let the government know it was cool to process them on shore, it would save a lot of heartache and expense. Yes it is not right that they have to come, but most have to, so lets give them the Aussie "Fair Go", just like each one of us has been given it at some time.

 

Errr dont bastardize the culture now. What your calling a FairGo is actually promoting a dangerous practise. Remember they have to break many laws in many countries to even get to a position where they can attempt the boat journey.

If your idea is to welcome them then what your doing is creating a migration pathway which will increase, and possibly increase dramatically. So while it might not be breaking the bank now, our costs would increase faster then the immgrants increased and wow, they would increase a lot.

Its better for the budget if it stopped, its better for the lives who can be saved if it stops, its better for national security if it stopped, and its better for our neighbours if it stopped for the same reasons. Howard stopped it, but the ALP restarted it via their incompetance - which continues to this day. In the meantime our steel industry is falling apart, manufacturing has stalled, property has slipped badly, the stock market has plummeted... and whats the news, how the ALP is great at political power plays and how dorky the Libs look.

 

But what's the difference if we stop the people coming "in boats" and simply take refugees who have already been processed by the UNHCR? These people have often been in limbo for years living in bad coniditions even though they've already been classified as genuine refugees.

What's the difference between one refugee and another?

One refugee funded a criminal enterprise to the sum of $10k which our government is vehemently opposed to and another did not. They might well have done if they had $10k, but they didn't.

So why should we process someone who has funded organised crime that our government is trying to stop and give them resettlement in Australia ahead of a refugee who has already been processed and is waiting in a refugee camp?

The part about the UN agreement that is the real kicker is that people who are deemed "countryless" are refugees. So what happens? People seeking asylum just destroy all their ID papers (usually they have flown to Indonesia so they had a passport) so it becomes practically impossible to prove that they "belong" to a country and then are just sort of "refugees by default".

It's a mess.

 

Right on.

If anything though (we do spend to much) by crickey the government, in all its forms (local councils, state, fed's) take their fair wack.

 

Unauthorised arrivals, not illegal.

Seeking asylum in Australia by boat is not illegal.

Their religion is irrelevant.

 

Missed the point, what a laugh, you my friend keep making your posts redundant by continually referring to illegal refugees. Anyone who still thinks that being a refugee is illegal is a fool and has no credence.

 

Didnt this thread already go over that point. People smuggling is illegal, and financing a crime is illegal. Boat people pay (money) to people smugglers (criminals) to deliver them to Australian soil so they can try and claim refugee status.

 

Yep, but for some reason there are people out there who still think it's illegal to seek asylum in Australia by boat: it's not.

Asylum seekers in boats are legal.

 

They just don't get it. A bit like a scratched record, they keep going over the same thing. The only good thing is no many how many times they say it, it is not illegal to seek refuge, whether by boat, plane, car or on foot.