Apologies if quoting goes wrong. The webpage I am using now has an
upgraded Horde version and this does not seem to be perfect. I try
some manual "repairs".
Quoting "Tim Josling" <tim.josling(a)gmail.com>
> On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Peter wrote:
>
>> There are better ways of dealing with it. Some of them are even
>> discussed in parliament (e.g. by Melissa Parkes who I mentioned
>> before).
>
>> Refugees for regional development:
>
>> We have skilled migration programs. People who do not qualify can
>> apply to get a visa excluding wortk in Metroplotean areas for the
>> first years. We have regional shortages in some regions - and a
>> need to decentralize our population.
>>
>> Camps help local communities. They are job providers and welcome there.
>>
>> Instead of locking up people (please explain what we will do with
>> them in Nauru or PNG?) infinitely, we can establish a routine and
>> timeframe which is balanced on needs to run security checks, as
>> well as helping refugees to adapt and train to fit into our
>> society. Running the internal affairs while in the camp (e.g. cook
>> for themself, build houses etc.) helps them - and maks it cheaper
>> for us too. The camps in PNG and Nauru are ridiculous expensive and
>> absolutely useless.
>
> 1. What measures would you put in place to discourage people
> arriving by boat or plane, if any?
What we do now is not "dicouraging" - we are plainly refuse to help
others and push them away.
From personal experience: besides of shooting people there is not
much you can do. I know an East German woman who was smuggled by bad
bad people (the West Germans called them "freedom helpers" then - it
is all a matter of perspective isn't;-) She was not in material
strife, not harmed in physical ways etc. - she was just sick of living
under Communism.
The proposal above includes a camp for screening etc - it is not a
free ticket.
> 2. What change would you make to the refugee quota? Would there
> still be a limit?
Yes, it is.
The only rub: the one arriving have to e dealt with. This is part of
our obligations - at the moment a legal one we do not fulfil.
> 3. Would the arrivals get work permits? How would they be supported
> if they did not get work?
Of course they should work - it is in their and our interest. I
mentioned that.
> 4. To what degree would you vet arrivals to see if a) they are
> 'genuine' refugees b) They are criminals, terrorists, or fanatics of
> one sort or another c) They have communicable illnesses? What level
> of appeals would be possible? Would we pay for legal aid throughout
> a long-drawn-out legal process?
The majority of people arriving here are recognised by legal processes
as genuine.
We just stopped processing them - ignoring our obligations.
> 5. When people arrive would they be detained or monitored? Describe
> these arrangements. Would this depend on the answers to the previous
> question?
I described them in detail above.
>> Instead of locking up people (please explain what we will do with
>> them in Nauru or PNG?) infinitely, we can establish a routine and
>> timeframe which is balanced on needs to run security checks, as
>> well as helping refugees to adapt and train to fit into our
>> society. Running the internal affairs while in the camp (e.g. cook
>> for themself, build houses etc.) helps them - and maks it cheaper
>> for us too.
If we aim for all peopke being processed in a year - that would give
them hope and us time to screen.
> 6. What would you do with people who are not 'genuine' refugees, or
> who are otherwise undesirable? Would you deport or detain them?
please explain what we will do with
>> them in Nauru or PNG?
As done before. We send them back.
> 7. What do you do with people whose status is uncertain? People
> arrive without documentation, they may lie or exaggerate their
> predicament. You cannot exactly ask, say, the Iranian government "It
> is true that if this person were returned then you would persecute
> them?" and expect a useful answer.
As Trent wrote, there will be false positives. I mean, even I sneaked
in this country - who knows what I did in the past? False papers
happen for 1000 years. It is the job of the processing parties to
figure out - it has done before and until now we did it more or less
right, the Opera House is still standing;-)
> 8, Would you limit where people could live and what work they could
> do? How would you enforce this?
We have that in place, we have regional visas.
Every employer asks for the visa, and Centrelink too, I believe.
> 9. Would you devote any extra resources to projects such as solving
> world hunger (as suggested above) as part of the solution?
Well, the current government thinks we are doing so badly that we have
to slash International aid..
There is a problem with International aid - it is subject of being
purpose-driven and feeds corrupt regimes.
Personally I believe it is better to donate on a personal level to an
organisation you trust.
> Then you should be able to have a chance of estimating the impact on
> the existing occupants of Australia. In particular, impacts on
> government finances, the job market, funding requirements for
> infrastructure, and social impacts.
Half-way self-serving community camps, regional development visas
(taking in account "our needs" etc. are helping us to cope with the
costs we have now.
I mean, we are dealing with the Navy, with lifeboats, financing camps
in other countries - do you think that is cheap?
It is not. Curiously nobody asks how much we spend on this. And you
know what answer you what get from Shire Scotty. "Operational matters"
- we do not even have the right to know.
> I would suggest that you policy proposals are well short of what is
> needed, in the sense that a hill of beans is short of the Himalayas.
Well, that's what I can illustrate (to give you an idea) in a few minutes.
I asked you before:
>> please explain what we will do with them [refugees] in Nauru or PNG?
Can you please answer one question? Thank you.
> Again I ask if people are serious - as opposed to moral posturing -
> why don't they come up with a specific proposal and show us the
> analysis of its impact?
Did you do one for the politics in place?
The one we have in place is above scrutiny, an operation where the
government cries foul if someone wants to report etc. - do not ask
questions!
Since when is the Migration Department responsible for running the
navy? What is the Department for Defence for? What is that dude of a
general standing next to Scotty when he does not report about his
service for our glorious country?
It is a shame that this country not even sees how pathetic this show
is. Monty Python is just half as funny as this.
Well, Hitler was funny too. Just watch Charlie Chaplin.
The politics in place are made up to buy votes and to distract from
other problems.
Thinking about Corby and the boats may prevent you from thinking why,
finally, our industry falls apart while some are getting fatter and
fatter.
But the falling apart is good for Liberals and fat cats: at Ford and
Toyota and Alcoa and SPC the workers have the smell of unions on them.
Well, it is as having a fly in your ear. Take the gun and shoot the fly!
That's how this country gets governed. With a foresight of three millimetres.
Good luck with this
Peter
Below is forwarded as requested. May be of interest to some.
-------------------------------
Connect 2014 is a new event showcasing over 65 suppliers of emerging
digital technologies, and features free on-floor seminars, dedicated
technology pavilions and networking events.
Register for your FREE visitor ticket and get access to:
• Over 65 solution providers offering best-of-breed
technology, applications, and solutions to help your business benefit from
emerging digital technologies
• 3 seminar theatres offering 50+ free educational sessions
covering a range of technology and business topics
• 4 dedicated technology zones profiling solutions for
Healthcare, Government, M2M and Enterprise Mobility
• Innovation Hub featuring 9 of Australia's most innovative
companies in areas such as wearable technology, augmented reality, machine
intelligence and drones
• Participate in the in-app "Treasure Hunt game" for your
chance to win a trip for two to the Hunter Valley, $500 gift vouchers and
Jawbone UP wrist bands
Learn how our lives and businesses will be changed by driverless cars,
wearable technology, sensors, 3D printers and augmented reality. See what
kind of new devices we will use at work and in the home in the near
future, and which devices will become irrelevant. Meet the innovators who
are building infrastructure to run the applications of the next decade.
Register for your FREE expo and seminar pass today at www.con-nect.com.au
Leneane Choong
Technology Industries
Department of State Development, Business and Innovation
Level 35, 121 Exhibition Street Melbourne, Victoria 3000
P: (03) 9651 9476| Mobile: 0411 148 509 | E:
leneane.choong(a)dsdbi.vic.gov.au
*****************************************************************************************
Department of State Development, Business and Innovation, Government of
Victoria, Victoria, Australia.
This email, and any attachments, may contain privileged and confidential
information. If you are not the intended recipient, you may not
distribute or reproduce this e-mail or the attachments. If you have
received this message in error, please notify us by return email.
*****************************************************************************************-
>> "In 2012-13, NOM increased from the previous year reaching an annual
>> estimate of 244,400 persons"
>>
>> The gross arrivals were 508,662 and departures were 264,291.
> So your figure of 300,000 immigrants was somewhat inflated.
It has been close to 300,000 (while Rudd was Prime Minister) and jumps
around. Again you are studiously avoiding the point - many people want to
come here. Whether the number of 244,000 is a large number. And your
numbers were understated.
>Actually if you care to check the Senator's comments I think you will
>discover that they were referring to people who come over via boat as an
>unauthorised arrival. It does take a certain desperation to even
>contemplate such as journey.
Here is the quote I was referring to
Quoting President Vaira Vike-Freiberga of Latvia "No one leaves their home
willingly or gladly. When people leave en masse the place of their birth,
the place where they live it means there is something very deeply wrong
with the circumstances in that country and we should never take lightly
these flights of refugees fleeing across borders. They are a sign, they are
a symptom, they are proof that something is very wrong somewhere on the
international scene. When the moment comes to leave your home, it is a
painful moment."
Draw your own conclusions.
>There's plenty of policy proposals out there if one does a little bit of
>honest research.
Not that hours of searching were able to uncover. If what you are saying
were true, it would be very simple to provide a link, or to fill in the
answers the questions. I had no trouble finding proposals for other issues
such as global warming.
Tim
>From: "Lev Lafayette"
>> As you perhaps also suggested, there is also a question of definition. I
>> have heard it said (not by you) for example that there is really no such
>> thing as Palestine as a country. Therefore "Palestinians" in Jordan or
>> Syria or Lebanon or Egypt are really in most cases in their own country
>> and
> therefore do not fit with some legal definitions of refugees.
> Perhaps you would care to provide an example of such a legal definition?
>> So I don't put much
>> store on the UN's legal definition.
> Could you provide, for reference, which definition you are using then?
See under Definition from"United Nations Convention Relating to the Status
of Refugees". Note the requirement to be outside your country.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee
As I said, I don't consider legal definitions to be morally probative.
>> There is also the issue of latent refugee supply.
> Or it is any number you choose?
As an IT guy, if you have done any capacity planning you should be well
aware of the concept of latent demand. And that it is hard to estimate.
That is why I used various methods to show that iarge eg green card lottery
applicants. According to Wikipedia there are over 2,000,000 Tamils in Sri
Lanka and over 9,000,000 Palestinians about half of whom are classified as
refugees.
>>Immigration to Australia is
>> already in the range of 300,000 per year and many more are knocked back.
> [[Citation needed]]
See below.
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ABS-3401.0-OverseasArrivalsDeparturesAus…
> According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Nov 2012 to Nov 2013
> there was 163910 permanent settlers arrivals.
>It seems that on both the matter of refugees and immigrants when reality
>is compared to the numbers you claim, you roughly double the real figures.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/3412.0Chapter32011-12%20and%…
"In 2012-13, NOM increased from the previous year reaching an annual
estimate of 244,400 persons"
The gross arrivals were 508,662 and departures were 264,291.
People arrive with various temporary visas and become permanents thus your
figure is misleading.
In any case, you are avoiding the point which is that in reality large
numbers of people want to come and live in Australia, far more than we can
realistically accept. And the ludicrousness of the proposition that no-one
would leave their country of origin except in cases of dire need,
And again note the intense focus on proving what an evil person I am, as a
means for distracting everyone from the basic issue that moral posturing is
no substitute for an actual policy proposal.
Tim
> From: "Trent W. Buck"
> [I'm not actually sure what position you were taking, Tim, so
> apologies if I'm violently agreeing with you ;-)]
As background I acknowledge that we have a moral obligation to help
underprivileged people.
I question whether policies that encourage refugee or quasi-refugee
arrivals by boat are the best way to do this. I also claim that the demand
for places in Australia exceeds our reasonable capacity to accept refugees
without seriously impacting our own well-being.
I noted that in this area there is a chronic lack of specificity in the
proposals being put forward. And little or no analysis of the impact of the
suggestions being made. Surely, I thought to myself, if people are serious
they would have a specific proposal in mind? When you look at global
warming, there are plenty of specific proposals about how to respond to the
issue. So why not here?
I asked for specific proposals and for an analysis of the impact of those
policies. Or a link to them.
In general the response has been far more heat than light.
The list of questions I posted was an attempt to smoke out an actual policy
proposal. It is not a rhetorical list of the problems with refugee intake,
but a list of questions anyone who is actually serious about proposing a
policy would need to answer. In fact, that they should have at hand already.
I am not interested in another rant about the moral inferiority of the
bogans in the western suburbs, John Howard, Tony Abbott or other
politicians, and the moral superiority of the author of said rant. But by
and large that - and some nit picking - is all I have gotten.
>> 1. What measures would you put in place to discourage people
>> arriving by boat or plane, if any?
> That seems to presuppose that immigration is undesirable.
No. That is why I said "if any". If you can't tell me if you will have any
measures to discourage people from arriving, it becomes very hard to
analyse the implications of your policy. Similarly with the other
questions. Would you still have a refugee quota? How big? Etc.
I am not presupposing answers here. Just asking "What is your policy?" and
:"What are the implications?"
My own view if anyone is interested: I am for increasing the refugee quota
to about 100,000 (a massive increase from current numbers) at the expense
of other categories of migration. I would overall reduce migration
substantially and apart from refugees I would strongly focus on the
benefits the proposed refugee brings to the table for people already here.
I would continue strong measures to discourage unsolicited arrivals.
I acknowledge that this falls short of many views of the moral imperative.
If we value others' welfare as much as our own, we should do much more to
help the poor and suffering. Foreign aid should be perhaps 30% of GDP
rather than the current value of approximately zero. But it is evident that
we vastly value our own welfare over that of others. I do not exclude
myself from this.
I enquired if anyone on the list donated such an amount (30%+ of income) to
the betterment of the poor and to date no-one has come forward (though such
people do exist). The suspicion arises that all the beating of chests, the
long verbal rants, etc, are a cheap way to signal moral stature without
actually paying a price.
> Tim Josling wrote:
>> In general except for underpopulated countries around 100% of the
>> benefits of immigration go to the immigrants.
>Citation needed.
I was basing this on an IAC report from some years back. I don't have the
citation. Good research is rare in this area because of the influence of
vested interests (such as the housing industry) and the politicisation of
the area.
As a matter of common sense, if there is no labour shortage then increasing
the labour supply will have mainly distributional effects to the detriment
of the existing labour force. This is of course one reason why employers
like high immigration. There are also specific industries like housing that
benefit from immigration. from As Kevin Rudd put it, the idea is to "reduce
pressure on the labour market". Amazing to hear this from a Labor
politician.
Tim
>
> From: "Lev Lafayette"
> Subject: Re: [luv-talk] Refugees (was Re: Vale Nelson Mandela)
> To: luv-talk(a)lists.luv.asn.au
>
> On Sun, January 19, 2014 10:55 pm, Peter wrote:
> >
> > If you like, browse through the refugee statistics as provided by the
> > UNHCR, e.g.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population
> >
>
> Interesting table.
>
> For starters it suggests that the world refugee population is 10 million,
> not the 20 million previously cited, and half of those are Palestinians.
>
>
The numbers do bounce around depending on the level of conflict at various
times.
As you perhaps also suggested, there is also a question of definition. I
have heard it said (not by you) for example that there is really no such
thing as Palestine as a country. Therefore "Palestinians" in Jordan or
Syria or Lebanon or Egypt are really in most cases in their own country and
therefore do not fit with some legal definitions of refugees. Similar
arguments are made about other refugees in other places, that they are
merely criminals or economic migrants etc.
After studying law for a while, before giving it away in disgust (I was in
Malcolm Turnbull's class at Sydney University), I concluded that legal
definitions are not a reliable guide to moral issues. So I don't put much
store on the UN's legal definition. In a moral sense is there much
difference between a person fleeing persecution and a person fleeing
hunger, disease, starvation or lack of opportunity?
There is also the issue of latent refugee supply. Imagine for example if
Australia brought in a policy that any <member of ethnic group X> from
<country Y> who arrived in Australia was to be counted as a refugee from
persecution. It would not be a big surprise to see a rapid increase in
people of ethnic group X from country Y arriving and claiming to be
refugees. We currently do a lot to make being a refugee very unappealing,
and this no doubt reduces their numbers - not to zero but below what it
would be if we made it very appealing.
In any case, whether the number is 10,000,000 or 20,000,000 or 40,000,000,
it vastly exceeds Australia's capacity reasonably to accept them. Some
limitation is in my opinion going to be required. According to my
calculations already 15% of our GDP is spent catering for population growth
(eg the desalination plants).
In the Green senator's speech previously discussed, it was claimed that
very few people would leave their country of origin, except in cases of the
most dire need. This is simply not the case. Immigration to Australia is
already in the range of 300,000 per year and many more are knocked back.
Over 13,000,000 people apply annually for the US green card lottery - one
measure of the demand for alife in a wealthy first world country.
Tim
Petros wrote:
> The system slowly slides down into one which is governing for the
> "popular vote" - while showing less and less consideration for
> people outside their "tolerance zone".
Apropos: http://www.antipope.org/charlie/blog-static/2013/02/political-failure-modes…
Yanking a inflammatory quote at random:
The range of choices available at the democratic buffet table have
therefore narrowed until they're indistinguishable. ("You can have
Chicken Kiev, Chicken Chasseur, or Chicken Korma." "But I'm
vegan!") Indeed, we have about as much choice as citizens in any
one-party state used to have.
On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 11:24 PM, Peter wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Jan 2014, Tim Josling wrote:
>
> There are better ways of dealing with it. Some of them are even discussed
> in parliament (e.g. by Melissa Parkes who I mentioned before).
>
> Refugees for regional development:
>
> We have skilled migration programs. People who do not qualify can apply to
> get a visa excluding wortk in Metroplotean areas for the first years. We
> have regional shortages in some regions - and a need to decentralize our
> population.
Camps help local communities. They are job providers and welcome there.
>
> Instead of locking up people (please explain what we will do with them in
> Nauru or PNG?) infinitely, we can establish a routine and timeframe which
> is balanced on needs to run security checks, as well as helping refugees to
> adapt and train to fit into our society. Running the internal affairs while
> in the camp (e.g. cook for themself, build houses etc.) helps them - and
> maks it cheaper for us too. The camps in PNG and Nauru are ridiculous
> expensive and absolutely useless.
>
> Studies show that immigration is an economical long term win for developed
> countries.
>
>
It depends. You have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. It depends on
the quality of the immigrants, the state of the labour market, natural
resources etc. In general except for underpopulated countries around 100%
of the benefits of immigration go to the immigrants. Some benefits also to
employers due to lower wages and to industries that are population driven
(eg housing). The pre-existing population is faced with more competition in
the labour market and housing market, higher infrastructure costs, etc.
> Another means is the establishment of a "wealth belt" which makes it less
> likely people want to go "all the way" to Australia. People take the risk
> of the boats even if they end up in Nauru now (they know it now), it is
> better than dying in a war zone after all.
> We see our neighbours still like a colonial power and are interested in
> mining and plantation exploits only - our contribution to establish
> sustainable growth in PNG (e.g.) is small.
>
> The European Union has spread material wealth significantly since
> foundation in the 50ies. People stop coming in troves when their home
> countries are stable societies and offer hope.
> ...
Well, I mentioned some of the suggstions before. To ignore them is
> convenient. It is as I would play peek-a-boo wih a three years old;-)
>
> Regards
> Peter
>
I spent some time going through the archives for your policy proposal and
did not find it. The best I could find was random half thought out ideas
like those above.
An actual policy proposal would straightforwardly answer these questions:
1. What measures would you put in place to discourage people arriving by
boat or plane, if any?
2. What change would you make to the refugee quota? Would there still be a
limit?
3. Would the arrivals get work permits? How would they be supported if they
did not get work?
4. To what degree would you vet arrivals to see if a) they are 'genuine'
refugees b) They are criminals, terrorists, or fanatics of one sort or
another c) They have communicable illnesses? What level of appeals would be
possible? Would we pay for legal aid throughout a long-drawn-out legal
process?
5. When people arrive would they be detained or monitored? Describe these
arrangements. Would this depend on the answers to the previous question?
6. What would you do with people who are not 'genuine' refugees, or who are
otherwise undesirable? Would you deport or detain them?
7. What do you do with people whose status is uncertain? People arrive
without documentation, they may lie or exaggerate their predicament. You
cannot exactly ask, say, the Iranian government "It is true that if this
person were returned then you would persecute them?" and expect a useful
answer.
8, Would you limit where people could live and what work they could do? How
would you enforce this?
9. Would you devote any extra resources to projects such as solving world
hunger (as suggested above) as part of the solution?
Then you should be able to have a chance of estimating the impact on the
existing occupants of Australia. In particular, impacts on government
finances, the job market, funding requirements for infrastructure, and
social impacts.
As any aboriginal person would tell you (some have certainly told me in no
uncertain terms) people arriving in boats do not necessarily benefit those
who were already here.
I would suggest that you policy proposals are well short of what is needed,
in the sense that a hill of beans is short of the Himalayas. Again I ask if
people are serious - as opposed to moral posturing - why don't they come up
with a specific proposal and show us the analysis of its impact?
Tim
