2013 Federal election (7 Viewers)

[townie]

Lol dis thread

 

[JT145]

You point out that asylum seekers don't deserve welfare, but then in your view, who does? Are asylum seekers the only group that gains welfare to 'not deserve it'? What in your criteria makes a person 'deserving of welfare' and 'undeserving of it'? Views such as this increase the stigma attached to asylum seekers who are vulnerable enough already. I apologise if this is not the view you were attempting to get across, it was simply the reaction I had when reading your post.

Australia is traditionally more democratically socialist as seen through our welfare state. The point of welfare is to attempt to get people back on their feet and earn a living, as an interim precaution to ensure that people can be supported while looking for work. Australia will have to look into its welfare system sooner or later and determine what the best balance will be but I highly doubt that asylum seekers as one group can come and completely destroy our economy in the foreseeable future.

But back to your point. If welfare and their associated support programs are done correctly it can ensure that 'x' number of asylum seekers will not come in to destroy our economy. If enough non-financial support (such as simply learning English) is given to them once they enter Australia it can decrease their dependence on welfare. I also find it highly improbable that the rate of asylum seekers will increase exponentially per year (even though it has doubled since 2012). I do not believe that the 'asylum seeker problem' has gotten to such a stage in which Australia cannot cope (and the government therefore has to resort to the PNG solution), I would think that this decision is heavily politically motivated. But no matter. Such hardline policies such as these should only be an issue when Australia sees that asylum seekers are a serious problem within the Australian community and if the economy cannot cope, which certainly has not occurred yet. I do believe in some protection of our borders but we are nowhere near that stage. So yes, I see that if 2 million asylum seekers (or to rephrase, 'an unsustainable amount of asylum seekers' [and in the case that welfare cannot cope]) arrive on our doorstep tomorrow there is an issue and a definite need for some more stringent border protection policy. But I do not believe that is currently an issue, and it is unlikely to become a potential issue in the future.



However I would like to ask you: what is your preferred method of dealing with asylum seekers?

 

[Graney]

This is the person responsible for one of the biggest policy failures of our time, responsible for undoing the pacific solution...

Do you really think pacific solution, or turnin back the boats would make a difference though?

The UN has 0 powers, case in point Rwanda. Nothing came of the Tampa Crisis; nothing will come of a repeat in a similar situation. Australia is a sovereign nation that is able to decide who comes here and under what conditions.

lettuce be cereal, no Australian government can do what you're saying. I mean you can do that in some fantasy totalitarian nationalist Australian state, but not reality, forget the UN, the soft power of voters, the military won't allow it. To stop the boats entirely, the navy would actually have to sink at least some of them directly, I expect the ADF would actually refuse to do that - let alone voters, coalition partners in the senate, etc.

We have a set migration intake annually, I don't see why refugees can't be some, but not all of that intake. Economists/sane people universally support a non-zero amount of immigration annually, most of Australia's current population arrived by boat or plane as poor, semi-literate immigrants a generation or two ago, the refugee intake doesn't seem that different to the kind of people who have historically settled in Australia? The quality of Australia's migrant population has actually increased dramatically in the past few decades, other than as a refugee, migrating to Australia is hard today, so it's a real historical exception having anything other than refugee quality immigrants. It's possible to maintain a moderate welfare state without bankrupting the treasury. Only a minority of the worlds refugee population are ever going to be able to get in a situation to come to Australia, so there are limits to what can occur.

 

[Kiraken]

Government is running this taxpayer funded ad in all of today's national and capital city newspapers. Yes, that's right, running in Australian papers. Shows just what a cynical ploy this is. Probably one of the most disgraceful government ad campaigns of recent times. Taxpayer funded just weeks from an election from a PM who said he'd stop this sort of this. There is no justification for the ad either. How many boat people read the Canberra Times? It's of course entirely a political ad.

wait, why is it "disgraceful"?

 

[isildurrrr1]

stupid ad thats a waste of money. yeah those people smugglers will really know about those ads they plaster in australia!

 

[nickestephen]

Malcolm Turnbull Should be the new leader, he seems to be the only one who doesnt mislead his promises or policies !

 

[lochnessmonsta]

I just had a look at this article

http://www.news.com.au/world-news/t...ustralian-waters/story-fndir2ev-1226676024840

While I do think that some of their realities are somewhat exaggerated I think it does raise some good points.

What a crappy article.

ALLEGED MYTHS:

1 - We are being swamped - compared to a couple of years ago we are
2 - We're a magnet - we bloody are, we have the second largest refugee intake in absolute terms (and we're not even in the G8)
3 - We take more cause we are rich - we do; highest resettlement per capita of any nation
4 - They're illegal - this one actually is a myth, unless you're found not to be a refugee
5 - Most AS come by boat - the very article starts at the absolute terms of 'plane' and 'boat' people in 2008, the start of the dismantling of the pacific solution. Then it moves to percentage of genuine claims in 2013 to try and get around the absolute terms. There are lies, damn lies and statistics
6 - Taking our jobs - myth
7 - They cause problems - the article doesnt address that issue, it only gives some figures on country of origin
8 - They dont assimilate - thats the big Q everyone wants to know. Nobody knows the answer to that
9 - Numbers increasing because we lack tough border protection - anybody that thinks that dismantling the Pacific solution didnt lead to increased boat people are so naive its not funny
10 - We can turn boats back - Indonesia's foreign minister keeps changing his mind on this issue, so no-one knows this either

 

[JT145]

stupid ad thats a waste of money. yeah those people smugglers will really know about those ads they plaster in australia!

+1. It's simply propaganda by the Australian Government, it won't do anything to deter people smugglers. All it does is increase awareness of the government's policy and attempt to increase popular support. If anything this is a misuse of taxpayer dollars.

 

[lochnessmonsta]

And Im pretty sure I read somewhere that PNG's prime minister said he hopes no asylum seekers arrive in Australia, does he realise the numbers we've been getting and that he signed up for a 'no-cap' policy?

 

[scuba_steve2121]

You point out that asylum seekers don't deserve welfare, but then in your view, who does? Are asylum seekers the only group that gains welfare to 'not deserve it'? What in your criteria makes a person 'deserving of welfare' and 'undeserving of it'? Views such as this increase the stigma attached to asylum seekers who are vulnerable enough already. I apologise if this is not the view you were attempting to get across, it was simply the reaction I had when reading your post.

Australia is traditionally more democratically socialist as seen through our welfare state. The point of welfare is to attempt to get people back on their feet and earn a living, as an interim precaution to ensure that people can be supported while looking for work. Australia will have to look into its welfare system sooner or later and determine what the best balance will be but I highly doubt that asylum seekers as one group can come and completely destroy our economy in the foreseeable future.

But back to your point. If welfare and their associated support programs are done correctly it can ensure that 'x' number of asylum seekers will not come in to destroy our economy. If enough non-financial support (such as simply learning English) is given to them once they enter Australia it can decrease their dependence on welfare. I also find it highly improbable that the rate of asylum seekers will increase exponentially per year (even though it has doubled since 2012). I do not believe that the 'asylum seeker problem' has gotten to such a stage in which Australia cannot cope (and the government therefore has to resort to the PNG solution), I would think that this decision is heavily politically motivated. But no matter. Such hardline policies such as these should only be an issue when Australia sees that asylum seekers are a serious problem within the Australian community and if the economy cannot cope, which certainly has not occurred yet. I do believe in some protection of our borders but we are nowhere near that stage. So yes, I see that if 2 million asylum seekers (or to rephrase, 'an unsustainable amount of asylum seekers' [and in the case that welfare cannot cope]) arrive on our doorstep tomorrow there is an issue and a definite need for some more stringent border protection policy. But I do not believe that is currently an issue, and it is unlikely to become a potential issue in the future.



However I would like to ask you: what is your preferred method of dealing with asylum seekers?

Ok so I’ve essentially won. You have alluded to that yes; you would be against people coming to this country if the numbers were too large. That's all I wanted to hear, now you're finally making some logical sense instead of avoiding the issue and denying denying denying.

I don't believe in government welfare for anyone, because I’m against stealing, obviously.

And I've already stated the two options that you have to deal with asylum seekers and illegal immigration in general. You can allow them in but give them nothing, or you physically don't allow them in/deport asap.

One is the internationalist view, which I as a Libertarian support. The other is the national sovereign view, which I personally as an Australian support.

I'm content with either of the above ways.

I am perfectly fine with ALL types of immigration as long as government welfare is not given. Immigration wasn't a problem before things like welfare was introduced unless there was a racist reason, which obviously I don't think are grounds to prohibit someone entering a country.

Now I’m not delusional enough to think that I will be able convince you that welfare is stealing and wrong, but I don’t need to because that isn’t what we’re talking about.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

lettuce be cereal, no Australian government can do what you're saying. I mean you can do that in some fantasy totalitarian nationalist Australian state, but not reality, forget the UN, the soft power of voters, the military won't allow it. To stop the boats entirely, the navy would actually have to sink at least some of them directly, I expect the ADF would actually refuse to do that - let alone voters, coalition partners in the senate, etc.

We have a set migration intake annually, I don't see why refugees can't be some, but not all of that intake. Economists/sane people universally support a non-zero amount of immigration annually, most of Australia's current population arrived by boat or plane as poor, semi-literate immigrants a generation or two ago, the refugee intake doesn't seem that different to the kind of people who have historically settled in Australia? The quality of Australia's migrant population has actually increased dramatically in the past few decades, other than as a refugee, migrating to Australia is hard today, so it's a real historical exception having anything other than refugee quality immigrants. It's possible to maintain a moderate welfare state without bankrupting the treasury. Only a minority of the worlds refugee population are ever going to be able to get in a situation to come to Australia, so there are limits to what can occur.

Whoa hey, I don't like shooting people and sinking boats as much as the next person. One could always take over said boat and steer it out of our waters back into international ones. And if they sink their own boat it obviously becomes an S and R mission. Once said people are rescued they will be returned to where said boat left from or their country of origin.

ORRRRR we could let them in and not give them anything.

And of course a country like Australia needs immigration, when did I ever suggest that I was against all immigration? But from a national sovereign point of view, shouldn’t we be able to decide how many come and how?

And once again you have fallen into the same trap the other two did, it's the principle of the matter. If X amount come the system will die. History in this case is irrelevant as the future is always uncertain. Basically shit happens

 

[townie]

I really wish lantern was around here to comment on his great savior in Rudd

 

[JT145]

Ok so I’ve essentially won. You have alluded to that yes; you would be against people coming to this country if the numbers were too large. That's all I wanted to hear, now you're finally making some logical sense instead of avoiding the issue and denying denying denying.

I don't believe in government welfare for anyone, because I’m against stealing, obviously.

And I've already stated the two options that you have to deal with asylum seekers and illegal immigration in general. You can allow them in but give them nothing, or you physically don't allow them in/deport asap.

One is the internationalist view, which I as a Libertarian support. The other is the national sovereign view, which I personally as an Australian support.

I'm content with either of the above ways.

I am perfectly fine with ALL types of immigration as long as government welfare is not given. Immigration wasn't a problem before things like welfare was introduced unless there was a racist reason, which obviously I don't think are grounds to prohibit someone entering a country.

Now I’m not delusional enough to think that I will be able convince you that welfare is stealing and wrong, but I don’t need to because that isn’t what we’re talking about.

Ah, I understand your point now. I don't care much about the result of this debate but I can see where you are coming from. Yes, I agree in taking action if the numbers become too large but the variable there is 'when the numbers become too large' which can bring up all sorts of debate and numbers. I believe that the current action being taken is excessive (and to a certain extent I don't believe the numbers of asylum seekers will ever become large enough to potentially cripple our economy).

While I disagree with some of your points thanks for having a good discussion.

 

[Jimmy2064]

it's interesting to note that boat people actually pay quite a sizable sum to people smugglers to get onto the boat. They aren't necessarily any poorer than legal immigrants

Yes and it's that sizable sum of money which allows only a a select group of people the ability to seek refuge, and thus we get people arriving here who relative to everyone else, probably weren't all that bad off in their native country.

 

[isildurrrr1]

scuba has read too many ayn rand books

 

[Graney]

Yes and it's that sizable sum of money which allows only a a select group of people the ability to seek refuge, and thus we get people arriving here who relative to everyone else, probably weren't all that bad off in their native country.

If they weren't too bad off, why would they come here by boat?

The dialogue is that people arriving by boat are economic refugees seeking to profit from Australia's welfare system, by using their extremely high level of wealth and privelege to gain passage to Australia.

Simultaneously villifying people for both their alleged wealth and alleged poverty.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

scuba has read too many ayn rand books

Oh please, I wouldn't touch ayn rand with a 50 foot pole.

 

[isildurrrr1]

If they weren't too bad off, why would they come here by boat?

The dialogue is that people arriving by boat are economic refugees seeking to profit from Australia's welfare system, by using their extremely high level of wealth and privelege to gain passage to Australia.

Simultaneously villifying people for both their alleged wealth and alleged poverty.

theyre going to come over here to shoot up all their jobs while driving in lowriders and listening to their raps.

 

[Jimmy2064]

+1. It's simply propaganda by the Australian Government, it won't do anything to deter people smugglers. All it does is increase awareness of the government's policy and attempt to increase popular support. If anything this is a misuse of taxpayer dollars.

Yes it will. Word travels fast and as soon as they realise they aren't headed for Australia but PNG, far less will come. There is a reason they come to Australia and not PNG in the first place, firstly it's safer and secondly the existence of welfare and financial support. Do you think they'll experiences the same privileges in PNG? no.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Yes it will. Word travels fast and as soon as they realise they aren't headed for Australia but PNG, far less will come. There is a reason they come to Australia and not PNG in the first place, firstly it's safer and secondly the existence of welfare and financial support. Do you think they'll experiences the same privileges in PNG? no.

Does the PNG policy only apply to boat people, or does it also apply to those who come here by plane? As in will they be deported to PNG from Australia upon arrivial?