Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 1023

Thread: Asylum seekers

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,288

    Asylum seekers

    Australia’s Offshore Cruelty
    New York Times
    23.5.16

    ...Scrap a policy that shames a nation with its pointless cruelty.

  2. #2
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    13,203
    Easy for NY Times to write about a policy in another country. Somehow these articles ''touch heart'' but rarely do they discuss negative impact of refugee intake not only on economy (both short & long term) but also on crime rate...
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  3. #3
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,691
    Especially as that same newspaper whitewashed Stalin's show trials and the Holodomor.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  4. #4
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Easy for NY Times to write about a policy in another country. Somehow these articles ''touch heart'' but rarely do they discuss negative impact of refugee intake not only on economy (both short & long term) but also on crime rate...
    It's easy for MichaelBaron to pontificate. Perhaps he also supports the compulsory sterilisation of the dim-witted to avoid the negative impact not only on the economy but also on crime rate...
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  5. #5
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,288
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Easy for NY Times to write about a policy in another country. Somehow these articles ''touch heart'' but rarely do they discuss negative impact of refugee intake not only on economy (both short & long term) but also on crime rate...
    Ill-informed. The long-term effect on the economy is very positive and negligible on the crime rate

    Accepting refugees makes the most economic sense

    Few asylum seekers charged with crime

  6. #6
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    13,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Murray View Post
    Ill-informed. The long-term effect on the economy is very positive and negligible on the crime rate

    Accepting refugees makes the most economic sense

    Few asylum seekers charged with crime
    Lets compare refugee intake with the intake of professional migrants and see which group performs better in every department . Or make it easier for international students who come to australia to study to get PR instead. It makes much more economic sense!
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  7. #7
    Monster of the deep Kevin Bonham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    37,981
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Lets compare refugee intake with the intake of professional migrants and see which group performs better in every department .
    That's hardly a fair comparison. Professional migrants are specifically chosen because they are expected to perform very well. Refugees would not need to get near matching them to make a net positive contribution. So where's your evidence for a net negative contribution? At the moment it just sounds like an empty slogan from the Dutton or even Hanson playbook.

    Or make it easier for international students who come to australia to study to get PR instead. It makes much more economic sense!
    Is this really an either/or choice?

  8. #8
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,570
    The comparison is completely beside the point in any case since (as is the case with the dim-witted) economic arguments do not remove the individual's human rights nor Australian's obligations to respect them.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  9. #9
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,288
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    You are trying to turn my words into Racist by taking my point out.
    I am saying that Professionals and Skills migrants should be welcome from all over the world. Sudanese Univeresity lecturers, lawyers doctors, engineers are welcome to Australia. Russian's without skill and education are not! Race has nothing to do with it.
    The topic of this thread is Asylum Seekers. Apart from being off topic, I assume your post means you are opposed to all immigration apart from skilled migrants. Which overlooks our obligations under international treaties regarding asylum seekers and humanitarian immigration.

    NB As I was writing this post, our mod was switching it to a new thread. So it's now on-topic
    Last edited by Ian Murray; 17-07-2016 at 12:57 PM.

  10. #10
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    13,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Murray View Post
    I assume your post means you are opposed to all immigration apart from skilled migrants. Which overlooks our obligations under international treaties regarding asylum seekers and humanitarian immigration.

    NB As I was writing this post, our mod was switching it to a new thread. So it's now on-topic
    There is no international obligation to accept whoever comes to Australia by boat unconditionally.
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  11. #11
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    13,203
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  12. #12
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,288
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    There is no international obligation to accept whoever comes to Australia by boat unconditionally.
    Our obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention, which Australia ratified, are quite clear:

    The 1951 Convention consolidates previous international instruments relating to refugees and provides the most comprehensive codification of the rights of refugees at the international level. In contrast to earlier international refugee instruments, which applied to specific groups of refugees, the 1951 Convention endorses a single definition of the term “refugee” in Article 1

    The emphasis of this definition is on the protection of persons from political or other forms of persecution. A refugee, according to the Convention, is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The Convention is both a status and rights-based instrument and is underpinned by a number of fundamental principles, most notably non-discrimination, non-penalization and non-refoulement

    Convention provisions, for example, are to be applied without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin. Developments in international human rights law also reinforce the principle that the Convention be applied without discrimination as to sex, age, disability, sexuality, or other prohibited grounds of discrimination. The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules. Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or criminal offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained purely on the basis of seeking asylum. Importantly, the Convention contains various safeguards against the expulsion of refugees. The principle of non-refoulement is so fundamental that no reservations or derogations may be made to it. It provides that no one shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee against his or her will, in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom. Finally, the Convention lays down basic minimum standards for the treatment of refugees, without prejudice to States granting more favourable treatment. Such rights include access to the courts, to primary education, to work, and the provision for documentation, including a refugee travel document in passport form.

  13. #13
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    13,203
    Quote Originally Posted by Ian Murray View Post
    Our obligations under the 1951 Refugee Convention, which Australia ratified, are quite clear:

    The 1951 Convention consolidates previous international instruments relating to refugees and provides the most comprehensive codification of the rights of refugees at the international level. In contrast to earlier international refugee instruments, which applied to specific groups of refugees, the 1951 Convention endorses a single definition of the term “refugee” in Article 1

    The emphasis of this definition is on the protection of persons from political or other forms of persecution. A refugee, according to the Convention, is someone who is unable or unwilling to return to their country of origin owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion. The Convention is both a status and rights-based instrument and is underpinned by a number of fundamental principles, most notably non-discrimination, non-penalization and non-refoulement

    Convention provisions, for example, are to be applied without discrimination as to race, religion or country of origin. Developments in international human rights law also reinforce the principle that the Convention be applied without discrimination as to sex, age, disability, sexuality, or other prohibited grounds of discrimination. The Convention further stipulates that, subject to specific exceptions, refugees should not be penalized for their illegal entry or stay. This recognizes that the seeking of asylum can require refugees to breach immigration rules. Prohibited penalties might include being charged with immigration or criminal offences relating to the seeking of asylum, or being arbitrarily detained purely on the basis of seeking asylum. Importantly, the Convention contains various safeguards against the expulsion of refugees. The principle of non-refoulement is so fundamental that no reservations or derogations may be made to it. It provides that no one shall expel or return (“refouler”) a refugee against his or her will, in any manner whatsoever, to a territory where he or she fears threats to life or freedom. Finally, the Convention lays down basic minimum standards for the treatment of refugees, without prejudice to States granting more favourable treatment. Such rights include access to the courts, to primary education, to work, and the provision for documentation, including a refugee travel document in passport form.
    I am sure there is a limit to the numbers that we have to accept. Or are you saying we are supposed to accept unlimited number? If you look at what is happening in Europe now - most countries do set a limit. So shall we be stupid enough to take unlimited? Also, does it mean we need to accept people who pretend their lives are in danger when they are not?
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  14. #14
    CC Grandmaster Ian Murray's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    5,288
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    I am sure there is a limit to the numbers that we have to accept. Or are you saying we are supposed to accept unlimited number? If you look at what is happening in Europe now - most countries do set a limit. So shall we be stupid enough to take unlimited?
    What makes you so sure? There are no set quotas per country. Australia's isolation protects us from the surge of refugees Europe is facing, e.g. 2½ million in Turkey, Germany taking 800,000 in the first year. You have no cause for alarm.

    Also, does it mean we need to accept people who pretend their lives are in danger when they are not?
    Only refugees as defined by the Convention. That's why DMIA runs background checks.

  15. #15
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Atlanta, GA (formerly Brisbane, and before that Wellington, NZ)
    Posts
    19,691
    Quote Originally Posted by jammo View Post
    Michael clearly has not heard of the Marshall Plan.
    Are you serious?? Just two days ago:

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    If a government is to be offered assistance, it has to agree to certain terms and conditions. Marshall Plan for instance proved to be fully justified as it rebuilt Western European economies. 13 billion over 4 years was a lot of money at the time..but if we look at the long-term impact it was money well spent. Some of it was also spent on feeding the hungry but within 5-7 years from commencement of the plan, many of the economies were already rebuilt to a self-sustainable level.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 5 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 5 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •