2022 Election
Andy-Mac, Supa, in 100% agreement. It is important to acknowledge the inequality that exists, irrespective of personal circumstances. It is not about wealth or lifestyle envy, but a desire to do better than we currently are. To only focus on macro economic indicators as a measure of good governance , while conveniently avoiding the underlying global trends, is not going to help. The Trickle down theory has been shot to shit over the past 40 years of neo-con leadership. Again, time for a change, and let’s see what the others can do.
Andy-Mac, Supa, in 100% agreement. It is important to acknowledge the inequality that exists, irrespective of personal circumstances. It is not about wealth or lifestyle envy, but a desire to do better than we currently are. To only focus on macro economic indicators as a measure of good governance , while conveniently avoiding the underlying global trends, is not going to help. The Trickle down theory has been shot to shit over the past 40 years of neo-con leadership. Again, time for a change, and let’s see what the others can do.
flollo wrote:Supafreak wrote:You still don’t get it indo , people are struggling and not just the flood victims or those that were effected by the fires and have still not recovered. People are struggling with the cost of living and rents , your leaders solution is to go buy a house. If there wasn’t a election coming up , there is no way the federal government would have chipped in for the queensland flood victims. You have written labor off before the election has even been called without even considering all their policies which the details will be released once the election is called . I’m writing the Scott Morrison party off now for his responses to just about everything in the last 2 years. The budget that they just released isn’t going to fix this economy, far from it .
Without any doubt I praise labor’s child care policy. There is enough detail on their website to see the benefits. I am a father of 3 kids and we’ll be out of child cares from next year. So, I won’t even benefit from it. However, it is so important for our society that anyone who plans to have kids or has little kids should support labor in this. I can confidently say that current system doesn’t work. It is terrible and it needs to change.
You mentioned this the other day too.
Im honestly curious on why you feel this way?
I have had one kid go through childcare and another now in childcare a couple days a week, and we have been very happy with the system, im not sure what there is to complain about?
Im always surprised at how little these type of things cost and subsidies or payments from government you can get (my wife does the digging and gets as much money as she can)
The centre and staff have been great, only issue we have had is the places just breed flues colds etc but that's nobodies fault and they do send kids home at times.
And yeah there is a high demand, so need to get in ahead of time, we just had another centre open though which has helped with demand.
The biggest issue we have had is last year the centres plumbing burst and flooded the centre, it then caused mould, so they had to gut the whole centre and rebuild which meant it was closed for six months, which sucked as we had to juggle looking after my boy so lost lots of work.
But that was nobodies fault really just bad luck.
Supafreak wrote:When seeing some of these refugees released into society , I think to myself, how much psychological damage has been done ? To be locked up at 14 or 15 years old for 8-9 years, how do they go ? https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2022/04/09/political-prisoners/16494...
For a start lets remember something very important all these people are there because Rudd scrapped a system that was working "Pacific solution"
He did this because of the pressure from Greens to trial an open borders policy which he did, and guess what it was a dismal failure, almost 20K people arrived by boat in one year, he then did something unheard of in politics and did a 360 back flip, reopening Manus and Nauru saying no person that arrives by boat will every be resettled in Australia.
He had to do this because nobody knew what the number would blow out too and what do you do with them all?
It was already going above our resettlement numbers and every person resettled who arrive by boat and have the luxury of having $$$ to travel and pay people smugglers, means one true refugee stuck in a third world country often refugee camp misses out on resettlement simply because they dont have the $$$ to force themselves on us.
Krudds fuck up was one of the biggest fuck ups ever, if he had just continued with Howards "sovereign borders" policy there would be no people in detention.
Rudds fuck up has cost us billions.
BTW. Nobody was locked up, they were always free to go at anytime, they also turned their noses up at resettlement In Cambodia and PNG, on Manus and Nauru they were not locked up and free to come and go from centres 24/7 and even had the option of living in the community, they could even work some on Nauru even ran business, but those motivated smart people ended up in USA with the deal we did.
Those in hotels in Australia were those who tried to use the medivac scam to get into Australia, which they did but it came with restricted movement.
BTW. The Saturday Paper is leftist trash not even going to click the link
You have a black heart indo .
Yeh Indo, you black hearted truth telling bad man you.
Supafreak wrote:You have a black heart indo .
Garbage
You're just buying into naive leftist clap trap, you should know better having spent time in Indo.
You should know that most people in developed countries don't have the money to travel and pay people smugglers thousands, the only option for these people is to apply for resettlement through official channels like UNHCR or direct to Aust online or via an embassy.
If you are going to give priority to a lucky minority that have the $$$ to travel halfway across the world and pay people smugglers thousands it comes at the expense of others that dont, often the most needy refugees.
A fair system is one that is as equal as possible and doesn't give people with money an unfair advantage over others that dont.
A fair system is also one that gives priority to the most needy refugees who will never be able to go home like stateless refugees, highly persecuted groups etc opposed to refugee that in time can return home after wars end or political situations change.
Off course you have heard stories of refugees resettled in Australia returning home to visit family etc, this is the reason why because situations change, and that is a wasted place that could have been given to someone like a stateless refugee.
Wanting a fair system that gives priority based on need and not $$$ is in no way having a black heart.
Optimist wrote:Yeh Indo, you black hearted truth telling bad man you.
Yeah , should just let the children suffer hey optimist
Supafreak wrote:Optimist wrote:Yeh Indo, you black hearted truth telling bad man you.
Yeah , should just let the children suffer hey optimist
You dont think the children stuck in third world refugee camps living in tents living off UNHCR rations often without electricity etc are suffering?
Just remember every time one person is accepted by boat one of these people miss out on a new life, purely because they aren't lucky enough to have the resources to by pass official resettlement programs.
Fair???
Supafreak wrote:When seeing some of these refugees released into society , I think to myself, how much psychological damage has been done ? To be locked up at 14 or 15 years old for 8-9 years, how do they go ? https://www.thesaturdaypaper.com.au/2022/04/09/political-prisoners/16494...
Read my original message optimist ? This is what set indo off .
BTW. If you look at the above graph and see when Mandatory detention was introduced in 1992, this was under Keating.
I cant stand Keating, but he didn't do this for political reasons, he did it in response to a problem that was developing with illegal arrivals.
Optimist wrote:Yeh Indo, you black hearted truth telling bad man you.
Perhaps you can provide a story tomorrow on how Jesus turned away refugees you fucking hypocrite.
No surprises here reading the recent contributions @info has posted. Graduate from the university of YouTube and social media and self appointed expert on economics and national/ international politics; always 100% right never wrong never ever . It’s all be argued here time and time again, forget folks it’s a total waste of time and energy.
Even Jesus lamented you cant help everyone, trouble is the whole world wants to come on down and get on our generous welfare system. If we don't protect what we have we're all fucked. Put Australians first.
GUY = Retired pen pusher latee drinking leftard with NFI of the real world outside of his idealistic vanilla bubble, you just sit up in your ivory tower looking down on others trolling them trying to shut them down not even capable of proper discussion because you think you are above everyone else.
Any rational open minded person would give the LNP credit for dealing with this pandemic. I cant talk about the east coast which may and possibly is different to the west coast but the businesses doing it tough here would be involved with hospitality and tourism mainly. Other than that and I'm sure they aren't the only ones, businesses are doing very well. Everyone you talk to are very busy. The biggest gripe is lack of staff and people to employ. Every business is paying people more to attract or keep them.
Then there is talk here of LNP putting us in so much debt yet at the same time they haven't done enough to help certain people or businesses. I got money from the government I probably shouldn't have got too. Probably no excuse for the bigger profitable businesses getting that money but wasn't the idea to get money into the economy quickly to keep things turning over?
How much red tape and stalling of that money would have happened for hundreds of people to be scouring every individual application for government money?
Look, I'm no economist so I'm sure I'm going to get howled down for the above but from where I sit things could be a lot worse. If you are able bodied and can work you can find a well paid job here. If you aren't and cant work due to disability etc then I think support for those people needs to be increased. It isn't adequate. Sit on your bum and don't want to work and contribute to society and there is a few of them around here, only blame yourself.
I cant think of too many times in my working life where opportunity for people to earn some decent money and better themselves has existed. Again, I`m talking west coast.
I find it intriguing when people here are talking like they have never had it so bad. I sit here thinking back to when covid first hit and thinking shit life is about to change so much. Yet life here hasn't changed for the worse at all. In fact life has got so much better for the majority of people. You must give the current government credit for that.
What's going to happen to our current debt when people are asking for more money to support this and that? Debt will blow out more or we pay more tax. Which do we want?
No @info, I’m not trolling you only expressing an opinion on the poor use of time (waste) in engaging you in you often desired “meaningful discussion” which, from observation over years, you come into with the selective use of information to suit your personal approach to life and politics. Nothing wrong with that but like some of the god bothers on here don’t get all shitty if the fucking gross hypocrisy of your argument gets called out.
Whatever if you're not willing to provide a counter argument, I'm not interested.
oxrox wrote:Any rational open minded person would give the LNP credit for dealing with this pandemic. I cant talk about the east coast which may and possibly is different to the west coast but the businesses doing it tough here would be involved with hospitality and tourism mainly. Other than that and I'm sure they aren't the only ones, businesses are doing very well. Everyone you talk to are very busy. The biggest gripe is lack of staff and people to employ. Every business is paying people more to attract or keep them.
Then there is talk here of LNP putting us in so much debt yet at the same time they haven't done enough to help certain people or businesses. I got money from the government I probably shouldn't have got too. Probably no excuse for the bigger profitable businesses getting that money but wasn't the idea to get money into the economy quickly to keep things turning over?
How much red tape and stalling of that money would have happened for hundreds of people to be scouring every individual application for government money?
Look, I'm no economist so I'm sure I'm going to get howled down for the above but from where I sit things could be a lot worse. If you are able bodied and can work you can find a well paid job here. If you aren't and cant work due to disability etc then I think support for those people needs to be increased. It isn't adequate. Sit on your bum and don't want to work and contribute to society and there is a few of them around here, only blame yourself.
I cant think of too many times in my working life where opportunity for people to earn some decent money and better themselves has existed. Again, I`m talking west coast.
I find it intriguing when people here are talking like they have never had it so bad. I sit here thinking back to when covid first hit and thinking shit life is about to change so much. Yet life here hasn't changed for the worse at all. In fact life has got so much better for the majority of people. You must give the current government credit for that.
What's going to happen to our current debt when people are asking for more money to support this and that? Debt will blow out more or we pay more tax. Which do we want?
I think that's a very fair rational well balanced view.
Its ok indo I understand your position on my post above about refugees that have been in detention since children, zero fucks given explains your attitude to a lot of subjects .
Supafreak wrote:Its ok indo I understand your position on my post above about refugees that have been in detention since children, zero fucks given explains your attitude to a lot of subjects .
Again the children are in detention because of Rudds FK up.
You know the best way to not put children or anyone in detention discourage them from coming and then turn boats back and don't accept anyone that comes by boat.
Again all those children in detention are there because of choices made by parents, they could have been living in Cambodia or PNG years ago, they could have also chosen to remain in Nauru and been quite happily living in the community(there is no children refugees in PNG only adult men)
You want someone to blame?
Take your anger out at refugee advocates who encouraged adults to abuse medivac and use their children as pawns.
indo-dreaming wrote:Whatever if you're not willing to provide a counter argument, I'm not interested.
“Counter argument”. I refer you to the SN archives where all of these issues have been debated at length.
Repeating the same lie or use of selective information over and over doesn’t make it true @info.
GuySmiley wrote:Optimist wrote:Yeh Indo, you black hearted truth telling bad man you.
Perhaps you can provide a story tomorrow on how Jesus turned away refugees you fucking hypocrite.
No surprises here reading the recent contributions @info has posted. Graduate from the university of YouTube and social media and self appointed expert on economics and national/ international politics; always 100% right never wrong never ever . It’s all be argued here time and time again, forget folks it’s a total waste of time and energy.
Dunno why anyone bothers arguing with the barely literate imbecile.
Not looking for anyone to blame indo , unlike yourself . A simple statement that I made about thinking of the mental state of these young adults that spent 8-9 years of their childhood in detention set you off . Was it the word refugees that triggered you ? You didn’t address what my post was about, just went off on a different tangent.
GuySmiley wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:Whatever if you're not willing to provide a counter argument, I'm not interested.
“Counter argument”. I refer you to the SN archives where all of these issues have been debated at length.
Repeating the same lie or use of selective information over and over doesn’t make it true @info.
You have never come up with a proper argument why a refugee who can afford to to travel half way around the world and pay people smugglers thousands should gain priority over a refugee who doesn't have this ability.
The closest you have come to having an counter argument is, saying " it's not illegal to seek asylum and we are signed to the refuge convention".
As we have been through before the refugee convention was created about 60 years ago in a very different world and is totally unrealistic for todays world, even Rudd found this to be true.
The clear the problem with you, is you don't really understand how much of the world lives and what true inequity is, otherwise you would understand how unfair your views are.
Hiccups wrote:GuySmiley wrote:Optimist wrote:Yeh Indo, you black hearted truth telling bad man you.
Perhaps you can provide a story tomorrow on how Jesus turned away refugees you fucking hypocrite.
No surprises here reading the recent contributions @info has posted. Graduate from the university of YouTube and social media and self appointed expert on economics and national/ international politics; always 100% right never wrong never ever . It’s all be argued here time and time again, forget folks it’s a total waste of time and energy.
Dunno why anyone bothers arguing with the barely literate imbecile.
You're a bigger troll than Guy, all you do is come in with your little snipes....never never add anything to any conversation.
https://www.unhcr.org/en-au/1951-refugee-convention.html
The way both side of politics in Australia has handled this had been a disgrace. There is no such thing as an illegal refugee. We have signed up to this convention and if as a nation we cannot abide by it, we should withdraw, but no party would have the balls.
People fleeing ear zones Bush, Blair and Howard created and we treat them as criminals. There was no need for this, the Fraser govt handled the Vietnam situation in a more effective and humane manner. Howard politicised the situation to dog whistle the racist elements in to the Australian population who were starting to offer support to Hanson. Fuck Morrison govt even opened up Christmas Island at an astronomical cost for a small Sri Lankan family, this was nothing but evil and purely to appease the racist fringe, most Australians would be happy for them to settle back into the community they had become members
If Labor try to reform this they are shouted down as soft on borders, political shitfuckery so neither party can address situation.
So called Christians condoning this, hypocrisy write large. Gandhi said something along the lines of 'I like your Christ, but not so much you Christians..
If you dig a little further the whole offshore detention thing will probably be exposed as just another way for LNP to gift tax payers money to their mates.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/nov...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2019/feb...
If this opinion makes me a woke lefty, then so be it.....
And I lived almost 2 decades in SE Asia mainly in Indonesia, but stints in Thailand, Loas, Vietnam, Malaysia and East Timor. I know what developing countries are like, so don't counter with the bullshit they are economic refugees. The vast majority of refugees as proven have been fleeing war zones or persecution. That is a fact,
Refugees are most welcome in Australia and are being processed constantly, mainly through UNHCR. …People smugglers are not welcome…they cause chaos for greed.
Vietnamese refugees who arrived by boat were welcomed into Australia. Accepted as immigrants on humanitarian grounds.
Optimist wrote:Refugees are most welcome in Australia and are being processed constantly, mainly through UNHCR. …People smugglers are not welcome…they cause chaos for greed.
Lucky it's not you or your family escaping a war zone ey.....
;);) well, this bloke certainly likes to try smuggle certain ppl into places too ;);)
https://m.
@ Andy
100% we should threaten to withdraw from the refugee convention and demand it be updated to suit the world we live in today and not 60 years ago, the perfect time to do this would have been when Trump was in power im sure he would have agreed, but as you say nobody had the balls or maybe it was just timing by the time Trump got in things were under control again..
Okay Andy you should have a better understanding of how others live and how most dont have the ability to travel and pay people smugglers.
So how do you justify supporting a system based on giving those with wealth priority over those that dont???
Why wouldn't you prefer to just have one system that treats all equal or if priority is given base it on need??? (priority to those like stateless refugees who will never have a home to return too, over those that can return home after a war ends etc)
Im honestly really curious on how or why people dont understand the bigger picture on this issue, most you can write off as just not understanding the world outside of their western bubble, but if you have spent time in SE Asia you should have a better understanding.
The idea of treating refugees equally and giving people priority based on need rather than wealth should be a left wing view and a Christian view..
BTW. those links dont work.
Lets say Andy, you and me live in some middle eastern country,
Im rich with a big mansion and you are my servant with a little shack next door that you live in with your family.
We get hit by a war missiles exploding right between our properties we have no choice but to flee.
I have passports and money and flee by plane to Malaysia then onto Indonesia where i then pay thousands to people smugglers and under your ideals im then fine to be resettled in Australia.
You though only have enough money to get to the neighbouring country and have no choice to stay in a refugee camp, you then get accessed and registered as a refugee with UNHCR, and apply to be resettled but are told it can take years even decades or might not even be resettled as most countries now are only accepting people who can physically get there.
Fair system?
Or would you prefer one system where both me and you apply to be resettled and have the same chance of resettlement???
Those links andy m put up work just fine .
indo-dreaming wrote:Lets say Andy, you and me live in some middle eastern country,
Im rich with a big mansion and you are my servant with a little shack next door that you live in with your family.
We get hit by a war missiles exploding right between our properties we have no choice but to flee.
I have passports and money and flee by plane to Malaysia then onto Indonesia where i then pay thousands to people smugglers and under your ideals im then fine to be resettled in Australia.
You though only have enough money to get to the neighbouring country and have no choice to stay in a refugee camp, you then get accessed and registered as a refugee with UNHCR, and apply to be resettled but are told it can take years even decades or might not even be resettled as most countries now are only accepting people who can physically get there.
Fair system?
Or would you prefer one system where both me and you apply to be resettled and have the same chance of resettlement???
Good question and definitely does offer some ethical dilemmas. I don't believe there could ever be a perfectly fair system. I'm about to head out so have to be brief.
My take would be that the wealthy would more than likely arrive in Australia by plane if chosen destination. Australia had many people arrive by plane and they were never exposed to same treatment as those by boat. If have that kind of money would not be jumping on boat.
However if one has arrived in Australia they should be treated as a refugee as we are obliged to by the UN agreement, not lock them away. These people have been used as pawns by govt for political means. Also I think the whole offshore detention thing has become a lucrative business model for some.
To your point of fairness, the system does not have to be set up like that, but I would want you and your family if successful in arriving to Australia to be treated fairly and humanely no matter what circumstances of your arrival.
Links should work, will try again.
Google these 2 companies and their lucrative govt contracts.
Canstruct International
Paladin
Basically it would be unlikely that you could just arrive in Australia by plane.
There is a lot of misunderstanding on how the system works, most people believe asylum seekers & refugees can just buy a ticket and jump on a plane arrive here and go im a Asylum seeker or refugee take me.
To be able to make it to Australia you need a visa first, either a tourist visa or business visa etc, most people cant get these especially from countries asylum seekers & refugees generally come from, if it was possible we would be flooded with genuine refugees arriving by plane.
People that come by plane and seek asylum arrive in Australia on a visa and then apply for Asylum most after already being here some time.
As you can see the rejection rate is also extremely high, because most are in no way refugees and just want to live and work here often often from places like Malaysia where their claims are laughable and most likely jus trying to extend their stay knowing they will be rejected, the process of determining things is easier than boat arrivals because you have a real passport and other documentation.
If you have a look a the graphs we average about 200 people a year are accepted while thousands a year have a go.
The reason why many that arrive by boat destroy these things is because authorities basically have to disprove the person is a refugee, which is hard when all you have to go on is their word and language spoken etc
I think the most valid point in whole debate is that the people who are arriving by boat are overall legitimately escaping persecution or war zones. If it was purely economical, why are we not swamped with refugees from East Timor, the eastern islands of Indonesia, the Philippines etc? These countries as you know have pockets of extremely low living conditions.
andy-mac wrote:I think the most valid point in whole debate is that the people who are arriving by boat are overall legitimately escaping persecution or war zones. If it was purely economical, why are we not swamped with refugees from East Timor, the eastern islands of Indonesia, the Philippines etc? These countries as you know have pockets of extremely low living conditions.
Because they would be instantly rejected because their claim would have zero merit.
The real problem is when you have refugees from countries like Iran, it's a fucked up country but they actually host large numbers of refugees from other countries, however if you live in Iran and want a better life, all you need to do is flee and claim you are Gay or Christian and you are classed as a real refugee and its up to authorities to disprove your claim, which is very hard to do.
USA rejected pretty much all our refugees from Iran but i do recall watching a video of one who did make it to USA, apparently he was a full on Christian fleeing persecution but once he got to the USA suddenly he mysteriously lost his faith, very convenient.
The issue though is really about if is fair or even realistic to just accept anyone who claims to be a refugee that arrives here by boat, i cant see how anyone can believe it's fair to other refugees and it sure is not realistic with the huge number of refugee in the world, even countries like Germany that have tried to be as idealistic as possible have gone enough is enough and my left wing friends from there surprise me on their attitudes to the issue.
Supafreak wrote:Not looking for anyone to blame indo , unlike yourself . A simple statement that I made about thinking of the mental state of these young adults that spent 8-9 years of their childhood in detention set you off . Was it the word refugees that triggered you ? You didn’t address what my post was about, just went off on a different tangent.
SF there is no moral or ethical argument for the continued detention of people so young no matter what their status is note its not a big jump to treat Australians in the same manner security laws make that entirely possible.
indo-dreaming wrote:andy-mac wrote:I think the most valid point in whole debate is that the people who are arriving by boat are overall legitimately escaping persecution or war zones. If it was purely economical, why are we not swamped with refugees from East Timor, the eastern islands of Indonesia, the Philippines etc? These countries as you know have pockets of extremely low living conditions.
Because they would be instantly rejected because their claim would have zero merit.
The real problem is when you have refugees from countries like Iran, it's a fucked up country but they actually host large numbers of refugees from other countries, however if you live in Iran and want a better life, all you need to do is flee and claim you are Gay or Christian and you are classed as a real refugee and its up to authorities to disprove your claim, which is very hard to do.
USA rejected pretty much all our refugees from Iran but i do recall watching a video of one who did make it to USA, apparently he was a full on Christian fleeing persecution but once he got to the USA suddenly he mysteriously lost his faith, very convenient.
The issue though is really about if is fair or even realistic to just accept anyone who claims to be a refugee that arrives here by boat, i cant see how anyone can believe it's fair to other refugees and it sure is not realistic with the huge number of refugee in the world, even countries like Germany that have tried to be as idealistic as possible have gone enough is enough and my left wing friends from there surprise me on their attitudes to the issue.
I have never been to Iran but have friends who have. They all claim it is one of the most friendly beautiful places they have been.
Anyway by your logic, please clarify, Iraqis and Afghani refugees are just using war as excuse to be economic refugees??? And only reason Indonesians are not flocking here is because they know they cannot use persecution as an excuse???
Lowest unemployment in nearly 50 years , but there’s a catch .
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/apr/09/scott-morrison-ta...
How good is Scotty from marketing!!!
andy-mac wrote:indo-dreaming wrote:andy-mac wrote:I think the most valid point in whole debate is that the people who are arriving by boat are overall legitimately escaping persecution or war zones. If it was purely economical, why are we not swamped with refugees from East Timor, the eastern islands of Indonesia, the Philippines etc? These countries as you know have pockets of extremely low living conditions.
Because they would be instantly rejected because their claim would have zero merit.
The real problem is when you have refugees from countries like Iran, it's a fucked up country but they actually host large numbers of refugees from other countries, however if you live in Iran and want a better life, all you need to do is flee and claim you are Gay or Christian and you are classed as a real refugee and its up to authorities to disprove your claim, which is very hard to do.
USA rejected pretty much all our refugees from Iran but i do recall watching a video of one who did make it to USA, apparently he was a full on Christian fleeing persecution but once he got to the USA suddenly he mysteriously lost his faith, very convenient.
The issue though is really about if is fair or even realistic to just accept anyone who claims to be a refugee that arrives here by boat, i cant see how anyone can believe it's fair to other refugees and it sure is not realistic with the huge number of refugee in the world, even countries like Germany that have tried to be as idealistic as possible have gone enough is enough and my left wing friends from there surprise me on their attitudes to the issue.
I have never been to Iran but have friends who have. They all claim it is one of the most friendly beautiful places they have been.
Anyway by your logic, please clarify, Iraqis and Afghani refugees are just using war as excuse to be economic refugees??? And only reason Indonesians are not flocking here is because they know they cannot use persecution as an excuse???
Ha ha no obviously that's not my logic at all, please dont try putting words in my mouth.
Okay the important thing again is you make the most of every permanent resettlement place you want places going to people who are 100% genuine refugees and never going to be able to go home, opposed to those who in years to come can go home and often do on holidays visiting relatives and friends.
Nobody is suggesting all are economic refugees but the reality is there is many shades of grey.
For instance here is the stats for Nauru in 2018
Let's just assume we were going to resettle these people in some way lots of peoples perception is they all deserve permeant resettlement in Australia
The majority are from Iran, to be from Iran they need to be a highly persecuted group like a Christian or Gay etc, as i mentioned USA rejected an extremely high number of Iran refugees from USA resettlement (about 80% rejected ) they vetted 85 and found 70 of them to be non genuine and 15 were found genuine and resettled in USA, but even then as mentioned there was examples of those that were resettled that were still pretty questionable Christians that suddenly lost faith once resettled in USA. (i wish i knew where the video was, i did post it at the time, it was about 15 minutes long and well documented documentary type style like Vice style, it was more a make up your mind type thing was he genuine or not)
Second is stateless, now if they really are stateless these are most deserving people their situation will never change, they will always be stateless, you would give them permanent resettlement.
Third is Sri Lankans, now Sri Lanka's war has ended and it should be very rare for them not to able to return home just like immigration and courts found it was safe for the Bilelo family to return home at best way back then you would only provide the a temporary protection Visa but now they would not be classed as refugee just like the Bilelo family are no longer classed as refugees.
Then you have a few other countries where you would get a mix of permeant resettlement ad temporary resettlement
Then all the orange is failed asylum seekers that dont get refugee status and must return home, noting this is under a vetting system that sees them as genuine until proven otherwise, unlike USA vetting of our refugees that was more they have to really be proven to be refugees, so in reality the rejection rate should be higher or would be if you had as much information to process them as you do plane arrivals.
After all that you're not left with a whole lot of genuine refugees for permeant resettlement places.
In regard to Indonesians if we did resettle Indonesians (other than the very odd political type refugee) off course it would encourage a percentage to try to come to Australia for economic reasons, in exactly the same way a percentage of Mexicans try to enter USA, sure the crossing is harder but it's doable, but it doesn't happen because we have very strict border control and immigration policy.
Supafreak wrote:
Um hello its called Job keeper people still have a job but its basically on pause so they get paid benefits to get them through,
Were you asleep during Covid?
yep i was on the nod.this whole time i thought it was called Job Sleeper?
Job keeper has finished indo , you still don’t get it do ya
Blop
Blip
.