Re: [luv-talk] What rights do refugees have under the 1951 Convention?
People who advocate that 'Australia' should help refugees are also playing politics. They are making themselves look humanitarian when in actual fact all they are doing is declaring how other people's money should be spent. If they really wanted to help refugees they should do something practical rather than complain that other people aren't doing enough. On 15/08/2012 10:17 AM, "Jason White" <jason@jasonjgw.net> wrote: Peter Ross <Peter.Ross@bogen.in-berlin.de> wrote:
I guess there are many decent people here, as ... There are, including people who support and advocate publicly for the rights and interests of refugees.
It is just time to get rid of politicians who continue to kick powerless people as asylum se...
I would characterize it as playing politics with the lives of the most vulnerable. The problem with processing asylum claims outside the migration zone is that the applicants have no access to judicial review of decisions that may be made against them. Immigration officers sometimes make serious errors, which can only be corrected if there is a court with jurisdiction to decide the cases. The grounds for judicial review of administrative decisions are confined to matters of law; the facts can't be directly contested in court, and, to avoid a misconception, courts don't entertain frivolous claims. So the result of bad policy is that claims are evaluated in circumstances in which there is no judicial oversight of administrative decisions. _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au htt...
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Alex Hutton wrote:
People who advocate that 'Australia' should help refugees are also playing politics. They are making themselves look humanitarian when in actual fact all they are doing is declaring how other people's money should be spent. If they really wanted to help refugees they should do something practical rather than complain that other people aren't doing enough.
You may not believe it - I put my money where my mouth is. Literally. Nauru, Malaysia, Christmas Island etc. are costing money as well - could I please ask the government to stop spending on my behalf? Regards Peter
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Peter Ross wrote:
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Alex Hutton wrote:
People who advocate that 'Australia' should help refugees are also playing politics. They are making themselves look humanitarian when in actual fact all they are doing is declaring how other people's money should be spent. If they really wanted to help refugees they should do something practical rather than complain that other people aren't doing enough.
Nauru, Malaysia, Christmas Island etc. are costing money as well - could I please ask the government to stop spending on my behalf?
BTW: It does not come cheap: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Solution#Australian_parliament_to_vote_... This is expected to cost $AU2 billion over four years for Nauru and $900 million for Papua New Guinea There were 6000 boat people and we spend nearly 3 billion dollars to fix the problem: Makes it half a million per head. Wow! Peter
On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Peter Ross <Peter.Ross@bogen.in-berlin.de> wrote:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Solution#Australian_parliament_to_vote _on_Pacific_Solution_in_August_2012
This is expected to cost $AU2 billion over four years for Nauru and $900 million for Papua New Guinea
There were 6000 boat people and we spend nearly 3 billion dollars to fix the problem: Makes it half a million per head.
The money isn't spent to fix the problem but to pander to the most ignorant people in Australia. A large portion of our legal system is dedicated to that sort of thing. Instead of spending so much money imprisoning people it would be better to spend the money training them so that they can get a job. Then they would be paying tax rather than costing us money. To save even more money we could refrain from sending our armed forces in the service of the US empire. A lot of the refugees are from countries that the US broke with our help. On Wed, 15 Aug 2012, Steve Roylance <roylance@corplink.com.au> wrote:
One good thing to come out of this is that our refugee quota will be increased, though not as much as I would like. (There are about 10,000,000 refugees around the world so it is not realistic to take them all here in Oz).
Tim Josling
actually Tim it is closer to 50M refugees, over twice the population of this already over populated country
However the vast majority of refugees end up somewhere that's not far from home. So no matter what happens we aren't going to get any significant fraction of the world refugee population ending up in Australia. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/as.html https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world- factbook/rankorder/2127rank.html According to the CIA World Factbook we have an average of 1.77 children born to each woman which gives us position #158 in the world rankings. For comparison China (with it's "one child policy") is in position #179 with 1.55 children per woman. I've seen it claimed that we would need to have 2.1 births per woman on average to sustain our population (the 0.1 extra to cover deaths and women who don't have children). So we need to have some immigration to maintain the population. As so much of the economy depends on an expanding population (particularly the building and real-estate industries) anything that involves a population freeze isn't viable politically. The total immigration in Australia is 5.93 migrants per 1000 population, that ranks as 17th in the world! For every 2 babies who are born in Australia one migrant arrives! The vast majority of this is people who want to migrate to Australia for work reasons or because they have relatives here. If there was ever a feeling that we should restrict population growth then it would be really easy to restrict work permits... As an aside, some people claim that a university degree does more than just provide a credential for gaining employment. Supposedly a science or engineering degree helps people develop the ability to think logically. Steve and Alex, could you please tell us what your educational qualifications are, I'd like to see if the people on this list support or contradict such claims. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
Russell Coker wrote:
Instead of spending so much money imprisoning people it would be better to spend the money training them so that they can get a job. Then they would be paying tax rather than costing us money.
To save even more money we could refrain from sending our armed forces in the service of the US empire. A lot of the refugees are from countries that the US broke with our help.
We could close the loop -- train the refugees to be soldiers, arm them, and send them back to their old country to murder their former patriates! \end{horrific satire} I'll tell you what's sick! People in the UK, in the US, fucking Canada, Sweden - they pay their taxes and some remote-piloted drone fires a missile into a public market to hit some warlord. Yeah, so maybe war doesn't happen for another six months, and the price of that gluten-free sorghum bread stays low. It's not sick to arm people, it's sick to bump off their crooks and dictators in protection of our interests and then call it international justice. These people don't have remote-piloted drones guarding their interests ten-thousand miles away. They don't have a war machine paid for with taxes. Where I am, they usually don't even have a fucking government. The drone is the oppressor. The gluten-free sorghum bread is the oppressor. The AK-47 is the great equalizer. I empower these people. -- https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Far_Cry_2
BTW, if you want to join a "Tell Abbott and Gillard: don’t punish refugees in my name" campaign by Amnesty International, here is a link: http://www.amnesty.org.au/action/action/29502/ Regards Peter
Alex Hutton <highspeeddub@gmail.com> wrote:
People who advocate that 'Australia' should help refugees are also playing politics. They are making themselves look humanitarian when in actual fact all they are doing is declaring how other people's money should be spent. If they really wanted to help refugees they should do something practical rather than complain that other people aren't doing enough.
In order to solve the problem you need to change government policies, and the only way to do this in a democratic society is through advocacy. It might interest you to know that some of the people doing the advocating also volunteer time and effort to work with refugees, so they are giving immediate practical help as well as trying to address issues of policy.
participants (5)
-
Alex Hutton -
Jason White -
Peter Ross -
Russell Coker -
Trent W. Buck