Re: [luv-talk] What rights do refugees have under the 1951 convention?
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
tim josling <tej@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
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".
I don't think anybody seriously entertains the above. However, accepting refugees who arrive (subject to assessment of refugee status) is the correct response, because it's the only response that respects the rights of the refugees. One of the central tenets of human rights is that they aren't subject to utilitarian, cost-benefit analyses: if a person has a right, then it must be respected even if it's costly and inconvenient to do so. I think the same policy can be argued for on utilitarian grounds, since sending someone back into a dangerous situation in which they are at risk of torture, assassination etc., is worse than incurring the costs of resettlement, even if the latter are high. Thus a good policy has several elements: 1. Acceptance and settlement of refugees who arrive, by whatever means of transport. 2. Pursuit of international agreements to improve the resettlement prospects of refugees and the processing system so that people don't find it necessary to undertake dangerous journeys by boat to reach a country that will respect their rights as refugees.
On 21 August 2012 11:28, Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net> wrote:
I don't think anybody seriously entertains the above. However, accepting refugees who arrive (subject to assessment of refugee status) is the correct response, because it's the only response that respects the rights of the refugees.
One of the central tenets of human rights is that they aren't subject to utilitarian, cost-benefit analyses: if a person has a right, then it must be respected even if it's costly and inconvenient to do so.
But these rights aren't real rights, they aren't natural rights, they are rights determined arbitrarily by the UN. They contradict natural rights. For instance, the right to private property is a natural right, but if people are being taxed against their will in order to finance the indulgence of various arbitrary 'rights' then the right to private property is being violated. These UN ordained 'rights' are more correctly called claims. Claims against the resources of others. I agree resettlement of refugees would be a better solution on utilitarian grounds. Therefore remove the welfare state and allow people to manage their own affairs, the result will be that things progress towards the most utilitarian solution.
Alex Hutton wrote:
On 21 August 2012 11:28, Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net> wrote:
I don't think anybody seriously entertains the above. However, accepting refugees who arrive (subject to assessment of refugee status) is the correct response, because it's the only response that respects the rights of the refugees.
One of the central tenets of human rights is that they aren't subject to utilitarian, cost-benefit analyses: if a person has a right, then it must be respected even if it's costly and inconvenient to do so.
But these rights aren't real rights, they aren't natural rights, they are rights determined arbitrarily by the UN.
...rights Australia promised to uphold, as you will recall from Petr's original post that started this thread. If you don't like it, either find another nation-state, or petition your representatives to have Australia back out of that promise.
Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
...rights Australia promised to uphold, as you will recall from Petr's original post that started this thread. If you don't like it, either find another nation-state, or petition your representatives to have Australia back out of that promise.
And there are good moral reasons for upholding those rights, too. While I agree that the legal issue is important, the moral arguments in favour of resettling refugees are the most important considerations. This is why the rights established by the Convention are not "arbitrary".
On 21 August 2012 12:26, Jason White <jason@jasonjgw.net> wrote:
And there are good moral reasons for upholding those rights, too. While I agree that the legal issue is important, the moral arguments in favour of resettling refugees are the most important considerations. This is why the rights established by the Convention are not "arbitrary".
It is not moral to force people, under threat of violence or death, to abide by your morals. I have no problem with helping refugees so long as it is not compulsory to do so.
On 21 August 2012 12:13, Trent W. Buck <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
...rights Australia promised to uphold, as you will recall from Petr's original post that started this thread. If you don't like it, either find another nation-state, or petition your representatives to have Australia back out of that promise.
What gives Australia the right to make promises on my behalf and obligate me into fulfilling them?
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Alex Hutton <highspeeddub@gmail.com> wrote:
...rights Australia promised to uphold, as you will recall from Petr's original post that started this thread. If you don't like it, either find another nation-state, or petition your representatives to have Australia back out of that promise.
What gives Australia the right to make promises on my behalf and obligate me into fulfilling them?
The politicians who were elected (including your vote) have the right to determine government policy. Feel free to move to a different country if the majority of Australian citizens vote for things you don't like. On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, Alex Hutton <highspeeddub@gmail.com> wrote:
But these rights aren't real rights, they aren't natural rights, they are rights determined arbitrarily by the UN. They contradict natural rights.
Of course if you thought about this issue for a few minutes then you would support human rights. Don't assume that because you have a job now you will always have one. Don't assume that your local community will be happy to support you if you lose your job or become unable to work - it could be that everyone in your region loses their job (as has happened to parts of the US in recent times). If you ever find yourself on the losing end of the employment game you want to have the option of welfare. Consider the small portion of your income tax that goes towards welfare as being insurance against that. Don't assume that Australia will always be a dominant regional power and don't assume that there will never be any form of insurrection or civil strife here. Don't assume that the US will protect us, contrary to American propaganda they have NEVER done so in the past, all American wars have served American interests (or at least the interests of some Americans). When UN conventions protect the rights of refugees it has the potential to protect YOU if things ever go badly in Australia. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
On 21 August 2012 12:33, Alex Hutton <highspeeddub@gmail.com> wrote:
What gives Australia the right to make promises on my behalf and obligate me into fulfilling them?
The fact that it is a government and you choose to live and work here, thus paying taxes. This is so self-evident that I am questioning whether you are genuine in asking. And if you don't like this arrangement, the simple answer is to find yourself a better deal.
thelionroars <thelionroars1337@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21 August 2012 12:33, Alex Hutton <highspeeddub@gmail.com> wrote:
What gives Australia the right to make promises on my behalf and obligate me into fulfilling them?
The fact that it is a government and you choose to live and work here, thus paying taxes. This is so self-evident that I am questioning whether you are genuine in asking. And if you don't like this arrangement, the simple answer is to find yourself a better deal.
And there isn't one, if absence of obligations imposed by the state is what you want, except perhaps Somalia, where there hasn't been an effective government since 1991. Of course, there are strong reasons not to live there... Governments impose obligations on citizens as a necessary condition of conferring the benefits that they provide. That's the nature of the state, and it includes powers of taxation for public purposes, including purposes taht you, personally, might not approve.
Jason White wrote:
thelionroars <thelionroars1337@gmail.com> wrote:
On 21 August 2012 12:33, Alex Hutton <highspeeddub@gmail.com> wrote:
What gives Australia the right to make promises on my behalf and obligate me into fulfilling them?
The fact that it is a government and you choose to live and work here, thus paying taxes. This is so self-evident that I am questioning whether you are genuine in asking. And if you don't like this arrangement, the simple answer is to find yourself a better deal.
And there isn't one, if absence of obligations imposed by the state is what you want, except perhaps Somalia, where there hasn't been an effective government since 1991. Of course, there are strong reasons not to live there...
He could potentially live in international waters or a micronation (e.g. sealand) -- I don't know offhand what kind of government "interference" he'd be subjected to in such cases. Likewise he could go to some shitty little island where the effective level of government is negligible, if only because the president is Fred Nurk who is a farmer by day and only does the presidenting on saturday afternoons, etc. If any of those still exist, and are recognized by the rest of the world as being legitimate nation-states (cf. e.g. Hutt River Province).
On Tue, 21 Aug 2012, "Trent W. Buck" <trentbuck@gmail.com> wrote:
And there isn't one, if absence of obligations imposed by the state is what you want, except perhaps Somalia, where there hasn't been an effective government since 1991. Of course, there are strong reasons not to live there...
He could potentially live in international waters or a micronation (e.g. sealand) -- I don't know offhand what kind of government "interference" he'd be subjected to in such cases.
If you don't want income tax then one legal option is to move regularly and spend less than 3 months of the year in every country. Some years ago I was advised by an accountant that international tax agreements (which cover the EU, Australia, the US, and probably every other place you want to visit) mean that if you spend less than 3 months in a country in a tax year you aren't subject to income tax. This of course requires that you have some fairly specialised skills that aren't location dependent. For example a fiction author could travel the world while writing or someone working from remote for a computer company could periodically move between countries with good net access. Of course the TeaBaggers lack such skills so they have to pay tax no matter where they are. Also there is sales tax which applies pretty much everywhere you would want to buy something.
Likewise he could go to some shitty little island where the effective level of government is negligible, if only because the president is Fred Nurk who is a farmer by day and only does the presidenting on saturday afternoons, etc. If any of those still exist, and are recognized by the rest of the world as being legitimate nation-states (cf. e.g. Hutt River Province).
UAE is a somewhat developed country that has almost no tax. However it's long-term future doesn't look good (if nothing else tax will be needed once the oil runs out) and it has an appalling human rights record. I definitely wouldn't want to be subject to their "justice" system. -- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/
participants (6)
-
Alex Hutton -
Jason White -
Russell Coker -
thelionroars -
tim josling -
Trent W. Buck