- luv-talk - luv.asn.au

Re: [luv-talk] Refugees (was Re: Vale Nelson Mandela)
by Tim Josling 25 Feb '14

25 Feb '14

Message: 3 Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2014 12:33:43 +1100 From: "Lev Lafayette" Subject: Re: [luv-talk] Refugees (was Re: Vale Nelson Mandela) To: luv-talk(a)lists.luv.asn.au Message-ID: <2df1d8a631f1b032f8386d080bbee7a6.squirrel(a)webmail.levlafayette.com> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=iso-8859-1 > ... >> 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. >This took three seconds - and for the record I'm neither a Greens member >or voter. >http://greens.org.au/policies/immigration-refugees > Lev Lafayette ... The url does indeed contain the word "policies" but the headings on the page are "Principles" and "Aims" and it is indeed a *very* high level document. Let's map it against my questions that an actual policy would easily answer > 1. What measures would you put in place to discourage people arriving by boat or plane, if any? Not clear, though they state that "mandatory and/or indefinite detention" would be eliminated. [What is non-mandatory detention by the way? Would they retain <voluntary> detention? Or do they really mean automatic?] Not clear if carriers would still be penalized for bring in people without visas. See also Q5 below. Not fully answered. > 2. What change would you make to the refugee quota? Would there still be a limit? There would still be a quota, but it would be increased to an *unspecified* number. Not fully answered. > 3. Would the arrivals get work permits? How would they be supported if they did not get work? " Asylum seekers to have work rights, and access to social security, legal representation, interpreters, health services, case management, and appropriate education for the duration of their assessment." Presumably this is after the initial checks mentioned in Q5 below. No indication what happens to those who are rejected as asylum seekers. Not fully answered. > 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? "Once initial health, security and identity checks are completed within a maximum of 30 days, asylum seekers who arrive without a valid visa to be accommodated in the community, unless otherwise ordered by a court, with periodic judicial review thereafter." Note that this seems to contradict (1) above, in that it seems to imply some form of temporary detention, and perhaps permanent detention for those who fail security etc checks. They imply that people can be detained with court approval. But not very clear. Not clearly answered. > 6. What would you do with people who are not 'genuine' refugees, or who are otherwise undesirable? Would you deport or detain them? " fair and appropriate accommodation" would be provided. Not clear if they are allowed to work or not. Not clearly answered. > 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. There is no explicit description of what happens to people whose status is or remains uncertain. Not clearly answered. > 8, Would you limit where people could live and what work they could do? How would you enforce this? "Greater incentives for rural and regional distribution of refugees and immigrants using successful models for settlement." This is rather mealy-mouthed and it is hard to know whether any restrictions would apply. Not clearly answered. > 9. Would you devote any extra resources to projects such as solving world hunger (as suggested above) **as part of the solution**? There is no mention of increased foreign aid within the page referred to. But elsewhere they propose a significant increase in foreign aid. Not clearly answered. So I am giving them 0/9 or 2/9 (Q3 is fairly close and perhaps Q9) and I am saying this is a poor excuse for a policy. --- To be fair, and on the principle of not asking someone to do what you are not prepared to do myself, here are my answers: > 1. What measures would you put in place to discourage people arriving by boat or plane, if any? Significant penalties for carriers who bring in people without visas. Mandatory detention of unsolicited arrivals until a) They are found to be refugees per the UN definition, and b) They reach the top of the refugee queue. While this seems cruel at a first approximation, my argument is that this will reduce unsafe arrivals (eg by boat) to low levels, and, combined with an increase in the quota, is a better solution that what we have. I think that for any given level of intake that we are prepared to accept, taking that number in an orderly way is better than encouraging people to risk their lives on boats. > 2. What change would you make to the refugee quota? Would there still be a limit? Increase to 100,000 at the expense of family reunion quota and the lower end of skilled migration. > 3. Would the arrivals get work permits? How would they be supported if they did not get work? No. They would be provided with subsistence support in custody. Children would receive basic education to year 10. > 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? Applicants would be fully vetted administratively. Legal costs would not be paid for by taxpayers for any appeals. > 5. When people arrive would they be detained or monitored? Describe these arrangements. Would this depend on the answers to the previous question? Yes they would be detained as per (1). Similar to current arrangements including offshore detention. > 6. What would you do with people who are not 'genuine' refugees, or who are otherwise undesirable? Would you deport or detain them? Deport if possible otherwise detain. > 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. Decisions would be made on the balance of probability. If there are indications of deliberate destruction of documentation, or false claims, this would be taken into account. > 8, Would you limit where people could live and what work they could do? How would you enforce this? No. Once released from detention, once they have reached the top of the queue they would get work permits and a path to citizenship subject to the usual requirements. > 9. Would you devote any extra resources to projects such as solving world hunger (as suggested above) as part of the solution? I don't believe that any feasible increase in foreign aid by Australia would have any noticeable impact on refugee numbers. But for other reasons I would support an increase in foreign aid to around 1% of GDP and the removal of strings attached (eg must buy Australian products). My assessment of the impact of such a policy is a) A rapid reduction of unsolicited arrivals as happened in the past when word got around that a boat ticket only got you a ride to a detention camp. b) Slightly reduced welfare of the Australian people due to the foreign aid cost and to a certain extent a reduction in the average quality of immigrants. By definition if we are selecting people on the basis of refugee status, then other factors like skills and assets will have lower priority. c) Unhappiness among communities that enjoy family reunion. --- For the avoidance of doubt, I do not claim that the above policy is wonderful, and that it avoids all suffering. I claim that it is probably politically tenable, albeit at or close to the limits of what the electorate will stand. Contrary to what happens in school, the world does not always send us problems that have simple, clean, appealing solutions. The refugee issue is IMHO opinion a problem that does not have such solutions. Tim Josling

2 1

10" tablet recommendations
by Jason White 25 Feb '14

25 Feb '14

I want to choose a tablet, mostly for use by family members - although I'll probably end up running applications on it myself to some extent. I'll undoubtedly be the "technical support" for it. What I have in mind: A 10/10.1" tablet - size is negotiable to some degree. Reliable, long-lasting hardware, i.e., not low-quality components from a company that expects you to buy a replacement within several years. Ability to take a data SIM card, without requiring it, i.e., it will run from a local wireless LAN whether or not there's a SIM card installed, but we can buy a card for it if desired. LTE isn't essential but would be desirable for the sake of low-latency and high speed. Apparently, at least in other parts of the world, LTE is great for VoIP applications and it would be desirable to support these if Australian networks reach the point of being suitable in the coming years. I've heard very good reports about network latency on LTE connections in North America, for example. More than sufficient memory and CPU performance - this is a case of "buy the hardware and use it for as long as possible without replacing/upgrading". Software upgrades available well into the future, including security support and new versions of the operating system. It will be coming into an "all Linux" environment, which suggests Android might be the best operating system, but I'm certainly open to other possibilities. It will be used for the usual kinds of applications: Web, mail, video/audio playback, possibly GPS navigation (if a SIM card is purchased at some point). Other applications are possible, too. I know there are enumerable brands/models that will meet many of the above requirements, but I don't know which manufacturers and models occupy the quality end of the spectrum so far as hardware, longevity and software reliability are concerned. I'm looking for one of the "engineered to work exactly as advertised" options.

5 6

ABC RN Future Tense: Machines, automation and the future at 11:30 AM today
by Rodney Brown 23 Feb '14

23 Feb '14

http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/rn/podcast/2014/02/fte_20140223.mp3 From the ID3 comment: For decades we've watched machines gradually replace one blue-collar job after another, but in recent years algorithms and increasingly sophisticated machines have begun eating their way into decidedly white-collar territory. And as a result, economist Tyler Cowen now predicts the hollowing out of the middleclass. But is the picture really that gloomy? We explore the impact of technological change on the way we'll work in future. Interview with an author of "The Second Machine Age" Erik Brynjolfsson <https://www.google.com.au/search?sa=X&hl=en&biw=1376&bih=674&tbm=bks&tbm=bk…>, ?Andrew McAfee <https://www.google.com.au/search?sa=X&hl=en&biw=1376&bih=674&tbm=bks&tbm=bk…> 2014 http://books.google.com.au/books?id=WiKwAgAAQBAJ (Preview) http://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/17/before-blaming-the-robots-lets…

1 0

Open Data Day Hackathon today
by Rodney Brown 22 Feb '14

22 Feb '14

On http://opendataday.org/ Open Data Day, today it might be worth watching Pia Waugh's LCA 2014 talk "Opening up government data" http://mirror.linux.org.au/linux.conf.au/2014/Wednesday/62-Opening_up_gover…

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Refugees (was Re: Vale Nelson Mandela)
by Petros 20 Feb '14

20 Feb '14

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

1 1

Anyone Using DigitalOcean
by Brent Wallis 19 Feb '14

19 Feb '14

Hi All, Am interested in feedback or experiences with DigitalOcean VPS's. http://digitalocean.com Read an article on them late last year in Netcraft. http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2013/06/13/the-meteoric-rise-of-digitaloc… Have briefly played with a few images since, nothing really heavy though in terms of load, and have not had probs. Anyone using these for production purposes? Tks BW

3 3

TPP petition
by Russell Coker 15 Feb '14

15 Feb '14

http://action.sumofus.org/a/australia-tpp/?sub=fb -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/

1 0

Connect Event 2014 - Melbourne
by Daniel Jitnah 12 Feb '14

12 Feb '14

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. *****************************************************************************************-

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Refugees (was Re: Vale Nelson Mandela)
by Tim Josling 12 Feb '14

12 Feb '14

>> "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

1 0

Re: [luv-talk] Refugees (was Re: Vale Nelson Mandela)
by Tim Josling 12 Feb '14

12 Feb '14

>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

2 1