On Sat, 18 Jan 2014, Tim Josling wrote:
From: Petros
What I have been asking for is this: What is your specific policy proposal for immigration, including refugees? Where is your analysis of the implications of your policy? And a statement that the implications are X and I accept those implications for these reasons.
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. 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.
I would also suggest that anyone who wants to demand that the Australian people accept a large cut in their living standard, should demonstrate their bona fides by, for example, showing that they currently donate a large slab of their income to such causes.
Otherwise people can rightly say that talk is cheap.
"These people" usually use some of their income to support causes deemed worthy.
When you look at other contentious issue, such as global warming, there are plenty of resources that analyze the issue and possible solutions in detail. This issue is different, which is very interesting. Google searches uncover much moral posturing, but little else.
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