On Fri, Apr 4, 2014 at 5:31 PM, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
Actually many petitions achieve a result.
A petition may well precede a change in policy but this does not show a causal relationship. Politicians take notice of a) Polls b) Focus groups c) People who control large donations (eg trade union heavies in the ALP, large corporates, wealthy individuals). d) People who can stir up trouble and impact voting behaviour (eg the mining tax campaign). e) Cogent demonstrations of better policy options in terms of achieving the politicians' objectives. In my days in politics I heard politicians regularly refer to these but not on a single occasion to petitions. In earlier days petitions were a crude kind of opinion poll but serve little purpose now (but see below). I remember being told by a state secretary of the right faction of the ALP (in those days at least the factions had official office bearers) that a lot of the activities that politicians encourage people to undertake are there specifically to consume time and energy that might otherwise being deployed causing "trouble" and getting in the way of the real decision making process. He had had quite a few beers thus his frankness. He cited party conferences (since they became non-binding), branch meetings, fund raising, and policy assemblies as examples. He did not mention petitions but they would fit.
Alternatively, if you are serious: donate a significant percentage of
your
income to good causes,
If you have as much money as Clive Palmer then you can try to create a personal political party to achieve your goals. If not then your best option is to convince other people.
A person earning a good living such as someone working in IT, like many of the subscribers to luv-talk, could potentially donate $50k/year to a good cause. Charitable donations are tax deductible so this would be pre-tax dollars. This money can go more or less directly to support your cause. Such a sum could make a significant different to a large number of poor people. I suggest that your argument sounds more like a poor rationalization than a good reason. Trying to convince other people just adds your voice to the crowd of people shouting. The chance of making any difference at all is slight.
or do the hard thinking to actually come up with a better immigration policy
We have discussed this with you before. <insults follow>
I have been following this issue around the world for a long time. It is contentious and difficult everywhere. Take as just one example the scandal over the involuntary sterilization of asylum seekers in Israel, and their forced repatriation to Uganda - http://www.vice.com/read/uganda-is-the-first-country-to-swap-african-refugee... . The rise of the far right in Europe is linked to immigration as well as to the poor economy. No-one has responded to my challenge to demonstrate their sincerity and commitment to the cause they are claiming to be so passionate about by a) Demonstrating they are directing substantial amounts of their personal resources to such good causes, and b) Filling in the answers to the policy questions so show they have actually thought through the issues. Several people directed me to the collection of generalities and platitudes which is the Greens web page on immigration. This is not even close to a serious attempt. Given the Greens' poor record of predicting the consequences of refugee policy, an analysis is clearly needed. Eg they contemptuously dismissed suggestions that a softer policy would result in an increase in boat people. They could not have been more wrong. The best effort was Lev's attempt to fill in the blanks in the Greens' document. The problem is that this is neither Lev's policy or the Greens. And there was little or no analysis.
study what's been done before
You will need to be more specific. I have done this as best I can. I don't see any wonderful solutions out there. * Claiming that solutions are out there is not the same as demonstrating this, as we found with the Greens. * Repeatedly claiming that you have provided answers is not the same as actually doing so.
There was nothing below, just text quoted from another message. Did you forget to write something?
The text below was a list of questions that an honest attempt at an alternate policy needs to address. I reinstate it below. In my proposal, posted to this list earlier I suggested a large increase in our refugee intake, combined with a hard line on boat people. Strangely, this was followed by insinuations that I am a racist who wants to keep refugees out of the country! Apparently anyone who disagrees with the Greens' stance on immigration must be a racist. And I have actually studied the issues and articulated a policy. Yet somehow I lack the courage to take on these issues, or something. I would really welcome an honest attempt to grapple with this issues. Questions an honest attempt at a refugee policy should answer ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Policy ******* 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? Impact ******** 1. What do you think would be the effect of your policy on the number of unsolicited refugees arriving by aircraft, boat ie refugees arriving without a visa, if any? 2. What do you think the impact of your policy on the total level of immigration to Australia, if any? 3, What would be the effect of your policy on Australia's economy, unemployment levels, wages, crime and welfare dependency, if any. 4. What do you think would be the effect of your policy in any other respect on the people who currently inhabit Australia, if any?