Date: Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:47:51 +1000 From: Rohan McLeod <rhn@jeack.com.au> Subject: Re: [luv-talk] What rights do refugees have under the 1951 convention? Cc: luv-talk <luv-talk@luv.asn.au> Message-ID: <502EE637.5010002@jeack.com.au> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Russell Coker wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, tim josling<tej@melbpc.org.au> wrote: .......snip
I don't want to provoke an argument about this. I would just like to know has someone actually thought through the implications of alternative policies. If you don't want to have an argument then do some research and stop with the leading questions. Well I certainly understood Tim's questions as examples of what would be considered in a "coherent' policy To quote Tim: "Can someone point me at a coherent explanation and analysis of an alternative policy? I have searched in vain. The ALP searched high and low for something better and failed to find it. If they could have found something better than reverting to the hated Howard policy I am sure they would have taken it. I don't mean platitudes a la the Green's web site which basically says "be kind to refugees" & "Labor and Liberal are mean". I mean....:" So he is not asking for answers to the questions literally , but rather a policy which addresses them !
regards Rohan McLeod
Yes. Thank you Rohan. All I am asking for is "Here is my proposed policy, and here is the evidence I have seriously thought through the consequences, including indirect consequences". Not "It is obvious that accepting anyone who shows up is the RIGHT THING TO DO and therefore the consequences must be OK". Not "Here is evidence Tony Abbott is a hypocrite and a liar!!!!!!!!!!". I am 57 years old. I am well aware that the vast majority of politicians are talented and experienced liars and thieves. Russel Coker said: "As previous analysis on this list has shown the cost would be less than the current policy no matter what you do." Can you point me at this "previous analysis"? I could not readily find it. As I said in my first post I did search in vain for evidence of a well-thought out alternative policy. As regards immigration as a solution to the so-called demographic time bomb, the studies I have seen suggest that the level of immigration required to substantially change this situation are extremely high and is not in prospect. Our current policies based on paying pensions using high population growth are basically a Ponzi scheme that must come to an end. I included the material by Charlie Munger as an *example* of second order effects. [Munger has made billions of dollars by understanding them. Whatever you might say about him, he is not silly and he is a lot smarted than most of the people on this list but that is not relevant to the issue of refugees]. Tim Josling