On Mon, 10 Mar 2014 16:09:49 Tim Josling wrote:
1. What is obvious to one person is not obvious to someone else. If you have ever been involved in a business requirements workshop for an IT project you will have observed this phenomenon. I have frequently found that people regard the impossible as obvious (eg having been asked several times to implement solutions to NP-complete problems, and also to implement Human Level AI).
The requirements are quite simple here, don't do anything evil and don't break international agreements. Unfortunately the cowards in the Liberal party want to only obey international agreements when it involves things like the TPP (IE giving more rights to foreign corporations than citizens) and not obey them in regard to human rights.
The "Greens"' track record when they have made predictions on refugee policy is dismal. For example, they ridiculed the idea that softening policy on boat people would increase their numbers. This was so wrong that I think we need to add a new category of error to Pauli's three categories of error:
After the Vietnam war we didn't impose horrible conditions on asylum seekers and the country is still mostly white. Don't worry, even if we get more asylum seekers Australia will remain a mostly white country for a long time to come.
Let's say we take on board the suggestion that all refugee applications must be finalized within 12 months, which sounds reasonable. But remember, refugees are to be granted full access to the Australian legal system, with appeals, and will be eligible for legal aid. Anyone who has been involved in the legal system will be aware that fully running through the court processes in 12 months is not to be expected. And this is assuming that the administrative processes, including on-site investigations, waiting for replies from foreign governments etc can be done in 12 months. There seems to be a contradiction here. You cannot realistically resolve all claims in 12 months *and* give people full access to the courts.
One of the Greens policies is to end the war on drugs. If that was implemented then the court delays would be greatly decreased.
Also we have been told people should be able to work in Australia while their situation is being determined. And we are not going to break up families, so if two people have a child while they are here for several years, and the child has an enhanced claim on staying, and we are not going to break up families? The implication is that you can come here, get a work permit, string out the determination process until you have a child and it will be very hard ever to get you out of the country. Even the opportunity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby That is often used in discussions of US immigration policies. But it seems that hardly anyone does it, it's just a good way to get the racist vote.
to work in Australia for 3-5 years is very valuable. I met a guy about 20 years ago in Bali who had gone to Australia and worked for a few years, then returned, a rich man in local terms - he was able to buy a nice house, had a young and pretty wife and had bought a good business. Not bad. How many people would like to take up such an opportunity?
Someone who is so dedicated would surely provide great benefits to the community for the few years they spent here. We should try and get more people to do that! -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/