Europe submits voluntarily

[Jayjay]

The point is to help genuine refugees and filter off the economic migrants.

And how do you propose we do that? We've already established that demanding papers is just another way to try to stop genuine refugees. Is there any other way then letting them all in and then sorting out who is who after they've entered?

Yes. Put the ones with proper paperwork in fast track, and keep the shady cases in reception centers and with less financial incentives for some duration of time. Real refugees are happy to be safe and sound, but economic migrants are not going to bother if they can't live off welfare or get jobs.

We're doing fuck all to help refugees travel to countries in Europe. The extent of our helpfulness is to allow them refugee status if and when they manage to somehow get across multiple closed borders illegally. That's not helping. We should be taking ships down to Turkey and Lebanon and help move refugees and distribute them around Europe and beyond. Then we'd have initiative and separating migrants from refugees would be easy.

That would be more fair, but I don't see how that makes separating migrants from refugees any easier. If an economic migrant can smuggle himself all the way through Europe, surely he can sneak into a refugee camp.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The point is to help genuine refugees and filter off the economic migrants.

And how do you propose we do that? We've already established that demanding papers is just another way to try to stop genuine refugees. Is there any other way then letting them all in and then sorting out who is who after they've entered?

We're doing fuck all to help refugees travel to countries in Europe. The extent of our helpfulness is to allow them refugee status if and when they manage to somehow get across multiple closed borders illegally. That's not helping. We should be taking ships down to Turkey and Lebanon and help move refugees and distribute them around Europe and beyond. Then we'd have initiative and separating migrants from refugees would be easy. But we're not. We're just sitting on our asses twiddling our thumbs, letting them come to us and feel all generous about it. Whoop-de-fucking-do. I hope you feel proud?

Sweden seems to be doing that now.

Genuine refugees will at least give their dates of birth. I would suggest that Sweden employs a few Syrian Nationals with Swedish citizenship to interview asylum seekers so that they can detect whether or not these people are from Syria. If what I was told about Canada is correct, the government is doing that. (When I worked in China one colleague told me his wife had a job in Canada doing just that. Her major was Chinese Law but her level of English was also high).

Your last point is correct. Sweden Germany and also the UK (until recently) were offering good facilities for many families. Unfortunately housing is in short supply. First point of Entry countries such as Greece, Spain and Italy are just letting them pass through. These countries are short of funds and can't cope with their own issues.

 

[angelo]

If you are distinguishing between refugees and economic migrants there is no problem with most people taking in actual refugees.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Using the economic migrants as an excuse not to help the refugees. I think it's just a cowards excuse.

By keeping out economic migrants, it frees up more places for genuine refugees. In Australia's case, 12.000 places have been freed up that wouldn't otherwise have been there when there was a free for all under the policies in place when Labor dismantled our border protection set in place by a previous government.

 

[bilby]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Using the economic migrants as an excuse not to help the refugees. I think it's just a cowards excuse.

By keeping out economic migrants, it frees up more places for genuine refugees. In Australia's case, 12.000 places have been freed up that wouldn't otherwise have been there when there was a free for all under the policies in place when Labor dismantled our border protection set in place by a previous government.

That would only be true if there was a hard physical limit to the total number of entrants to the country.

While there presumably is some physical limit, it is currently dramatically higher than the actual population of Australia; and is most likely somewhat higher than the total world population.

So your point is invalid.

We could easily admit 12,000 refugees, whether or not we had previously admitted 100,000 or 1,000,000 non-refugees.

Indeed, between 1945 and 1965 we admitted around 2 million people. And our country boomed.

Then in the 1970s we admitted 70,000 refugees from Vietnam alone.

12,000 places are available whether or not we bring in a bunch of other people.

There is no shortage of 'places', that need to be freed up; We have one of the lowest population densities in the entire world.

This is a continent, not a fucking phone booth.

 

[bilby]

It seems we may have room to squeeze a few more people in somewhere...

 

[whichphilosophy]

And how do you propose we do that? We've already established that demanding papers is just another way to try to stop genuine refugees. Is there any other way then letting them all in and then sorting out who is who after they've entered?

Yes. Put the ones with proper paperwork in fast track, and keep the shady cases in reception centers and with less financial incentives for some duration of time. Real refugees are happy to be safe and sound, but economic migrants are not going to bother if they can't live off welfare or get jobs.

We're doing fuck all to help refugees travel to countries in Europe. The extent of our helpfulness is to allow them refugee status if and when they manage to somehow get across multiple closed borders illegally. That's not helping. We should be taking ships down to Turkey and Lebanon and help move refugees and distribute them around Europe and beyond. Then we'd have initiative and separating migrants from refugees would be easy.

That would be more fair, but I don't see how that makes separating migrants from refugees any easier. If an economic migrant can smuggle himself all the way through Europe, surely he can sneak into a refugee camp.

They could but better controls of who is in these camps will reduce the possibility. The reason he can reach Europe is that he has the money to pay for it. If he is in the camp he would risk deportation.

 

[whichphilosophy]

View attachment 5675

It seems we may have room to squeeze a few more people in somewhere...

In theory you could squeeze the whole of Africa. Then you have to add the cost of housing, transport, roads, fuels, and facilities for newcomers which will bankrupt the country and overstretch its resources and now lead to the end of much of Australia's unique wildlife.

 

[bilby]

It seems we may have room to squeeze a few more people in somewhere...

In theory you could squeeze the whole of Africa. Then you have to add the cost of housing, transport, roads, facilities for newcomers which will bankrupt the country. It can afford to process a certain amount of asylum seekers.

Why, don't Africans have the ability to do work and/or pay taxes?

We brought in enough people in the 20th Century to multiply the population by five (from 3.765 million to 19.169 million). Oddly, the country wasn't bankrupted by this - Indeed our wealth expanded dramatically as a result of these new arrivals; Because the people who came here mostly got jobs and paid taxes.

Taking the year 2010 as an example, in that year 297,900 parasite queue-jumpers, with no papers, no ability to speak English, and who have no plan to do useful work (for at least 14 years, and in many cases, well over two decades) entered Australia via our maternity wards.

This did not bankrupt our country; so the idea that 12,000 refugees, or 120,000, or even 1,200,000 (most of whom will be able to start work within at most a few years) are going to do so is fucking insane.

 

[whichphilosophy]

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Using the economic migrants as an excuse not to help the refugees. I think it's just a cowards excuse.

By keeping out economic migrants, it frees up more places for genuine refugees. In Australia's case, 12.000 places have been freed up that wouldn't otherwise have been there when there was a free for all under the policies in place when Labor dismantled our border protection set in place by a previous government.

The problem is that when policies are set in place to empty Africa, and vast areas of Asia into the US, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, the distinction between refugees and economic migrants is now always made clear.

 

[bilby]

By keeping out economic migrants, it frees up more places for genuine refugees. In Australia's case, 12.000 places have been freed up that wouldn't otherwise have been there when there was a free for all under the policies in place when Labor dismantled our border protection set in place by a previous government.

The problem is that when policies are set in place to empty Africa, and vast areas of Asia into the US, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, the distinction between refugees and economic migrants is now always made clear.

There are no such policies.

Africa and Asia have large populations who are not going anywhere. The total proportion of the populations of those continents who wish to migrate is minuscule.

Your terror seems to have rendered you completely irrational.

 

[whichphilosophy]

By keeping out economic migrants, it frees up more places for genuine refugees. In Australia's case, 12.000 places have been freed up that wouldn't otherwise have been there when there was a free for all under the policies in place when Labor dismantled our border protection set in place by a previous government.

That would only be true if there was a hard physical limit to the total number of entrants to the country.

While there presumably is some physical limit, it is currently dramatically higher than the actual population of Australia; and is most likely somewhat higher than the total world population.

So your point is invalid.

We could easily admit 12,000 refugees, whether or not we had previously admitted 100,000 or 1,000,000 non-refugees.

Indeed, between 1945 and 1965 we admitted around 2 million people. And our country boomed.

Then in the 1970s we admitted 70,000 refugees from Vietnam alone.

12,000 places are available whether or not we bring in a bunch of other people.

There is no shortage of 'places', that need to be freed up; We have one of the lowest population densities in the entire world.

This is a continent, not a fucking phone booth.

You can take in a certain amount of people as Australia has always done. However not in such unprecedented levels. For sure if you fill Australia with Africa, it will have one of the most populated densities in the world. Then it will be likened to a phone booth once everyone packs in.

If Australia has 12,000 places (a year?) then they can come over on the points system.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The problem is that when policies are set in place to empty Africa, and vast areas of Asia into the US, Europe, Australia and New Zealand, the distinction between refugees and economic migrants is now always made clear.

There are no such policies.

Africa and Asia have large populations who are not going anywhere. The total proportion of the populations of those continents who wish to migrate is minuscule.

Your terror seems to have rendered you completely irrational.

The figures in Europe are running into millions and they were originally scaling fences and being smuggled in trucks.

 

[bilby]

That would only be true if there was a hard physical limit to the total number of entrants to the country.

While there presumably is some physical limit, it is currently dramatically higher than the actual population of Australia; and is most likely somewhat higher than the total world population.

So your point is invalid.

We could easily admit 12,000 refugees, whether or not we had previously admitted 100,000 or 1,000,000 non-refugees.

Indeed, between 1945 and 1965 we admitted around 2 million people. And our country boomed.

Then in the 1970s we admitted 70,000 refugees from Vietnam alone.

12,000 places are available whether or not we bring in a bunch of other people.

There is no shortage of 'places', that need to be freed up; We have one of the lowest population densities in the entire world.

This is a continent, not a fucking phone booth.

You can take in a certain amount of people as Australia has always done. However not in such unprecedented levels. For sure if you fill Australia with Africa, it will have one of the most populated densities in the world. Then it will be likened to a phone booth once everyone packs in.

If Australia has 12,000 places (a year?) then they can come over on the points system.

There is nothing 'unprecedented' about a paltry 12,000 people migrating to Australia. In the year to June 30, 1970, 185,100 permanent migrants arrived here. 12,000 people is less than one fifteenth of that number.

And we are FAR richer, and have far better infrastructure today than we had in 1970 - Shit, it wasn't until 1974, with the commissioning of the North Pine Treatment Works that the city of Brisbane had flush toilets connected to sewers throughout the metropolitan area.

 

[bilby]

There are no such policies.

Africa and Asia have large populations who are not going anywhere. The total proportion of the populations of those continents who wish to migrate is minuscule.

Your terror seems to have rendered you completely irrational.

The figures in Europe are running into millions and they were originally scaling fences and being smuggled in trucks.

Good luck getting into Australia by truck. Or by scaling a fence.

The human race can easily cope with people moving about a bit. That we choose not to allow much of that movement has NOTHING to do with what is possible or practical, and EVERYTHING to do with racism and xenophobia; It is purely irrational, and your pathetic attempts to rationalise it depend entirely on lies - such as the idea that 12,000 migrants are an "unprecedented" influx for Australia.

It's not. It's not even CLOSE.

Get some actual facts, backed by actual data, or STFU. Trying to scare me with lies and innuendo is not getting you anywhere.

 

[beero1000]

You can take in a certain amount of people as Australia has always done. However not in such unprecedented levels. For sure if you fill Australia with Africa, it will have one of the most populated densities in the world. Then it will be likened to a phone booth once everyone packs in.

If Australia has 12,000 places (a year?) then they can come over on the points system.

There is nothing 'unprecedented' about a paltry 12,000 people migrating to Australia. In the year to June 30, 1970, 185,100 permanent migrants arrived here. 12,000 people is less than one fifteenth of that number.

And we are FAR richer, and have far better infrastructure today than we had in 1970 - Shit, it wasn't until 1974, with the commissioning of the North Pine Treatment Works that the city of Brisbane had flush toilets connected to sewers throughout the metropolitan area.

Wait, so you're saying that moving a billion people from Africa to Australia isn't a realistic scenario?!

 

[bilby]

There is nothing 'unprecedented' about a paltry 12,000 people migrating to Australia. In the year to June 30, 1970, 185,100 permanent migrants arrived here. 12,000 people is less than one fifteenth of that number.

And we are FAR richer, and have far better infrastructure today than we had in 1970 - Shit, it wasn't until 1974, with the commissioning of the North Pine Treatment Works that the city of Brisbane had flush toilets connected to sewers throughout the metropolitan area.

Wait, so you're saying that moving a billion people from Africa to Australia isn't a realistic scenario?!

Apparently they are going to come by truck.

I am not holding my breath (but they may need to, the Indian Ocean is fairly wide and quite deep).

 

[angelo]

By keeping out economic migrants, it frees up more places for genuine refugees. In Australia's case, 12.000 places have been freed up that wouldn't otherwise have been there when there was a free for all under the policies in place when Labor dismantled our border protection set in place by a previous government.

That would only be true if there was a hard physical limit to the total number of entrants to the country.

While there presumably is some physical limit, it is currently dramatically higher than the actual population of Australia; and is most likely somewhat higher than the total world population.

So your point is invalid.

We could easily admit 12,000 refugees, whether or not we had previously admitted 100,000 or 1,000,000 non-refugees.

Indeed, between 1945 and 1965 we admitted around 2 million people. And our country boomed.

Then in the 1970s we admitted 70,000 refugees from Vietnam alone.

12,000 places are available whether or not we bring in a bunch of other people.

There is no shortage of 'places', that need to be freed up; We have one of the lowest population densities in the entire world.

This is a continent, not a fucking phone booth.

Why not completely open the borders and let the whole 30-40 million refugees in to the country? The UN would love us!

 

[angelo]

Don't you just love it when people look at the map of Australia and see that it's a big country, and believe it's all habital. They forget, or choose to ignore that this is one of the most arid continents on earth. Only the coastal areas are suitable for habition. The interior is mostly desert. That would suit Sahara people.

 

[whichphilosophy]

There is nothing 'unprecedented' about a paltry 12,000 people migrating to Australia. In the year to June 30, 1970, 185,100 permanent migrants arrived here. 12,000 people is less than one fifteenth of that number.

And we are FAR richer, and have far better infrastructure today than we had in 1970 - Shit, it wasn't until 1974, with the commissioning of the North Pine Treatment Works that the city of Brisbane had flush toilets connected to sewers throughout the metropolitan area.

Wait, so you're saying that moving a billion people from Africa to Australia isn't a realistic scenario?!

Not on the same boat anyway.

 

[whichphilosophy]

You can take in a certain amount of people as Australia has always done. However not in such unprecedented levels. For sure if you fill Australia with Africa, it will have one of the most populated densities in the world. Then it will be likened to a phone booth once everyone packs in.

If Australia has 12,000 places (a year?) then they can come over on the points system.

There is nothing 'unprecedented' about a paltry 12,000 people migrating to Australia. In the year to June 30, 1970, 185,100 permanent migrants arrived here. 12,000 people is less than one fifteenth of that number.

And we are FAR richer, and have far better infrastructure today than we had in 1970 - Shit, it wasn't until 1974, with the commissioning of the North Pine Treatment Works that the city of Brisbane had flush toilets connected to sewers throughout the metropolitan area.

If you allow 185,000 all the time wherein it will only attract hundreds of thousands more then of course.