Europe submits voluntarily

[whichphilosophy]

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.

It those arid areas were the only option, the chances are that this would actually deter some from arriving.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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.

The system in Sweden now is that we only accept people with proper paperwork and the fast track is going to reception centers with zero financial incentives. They're forbidden from working. So I guess you're happy? BTW, the fast track is sitting on your ass a minimum of 18 months waiting to be processed. That's the fastest track. This is due to UNHCR rules. The rules are put in place to prevent corruption, bribery and unfairness. It's slow, but they are very fair and rigorous.

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.

Why wouldn't a refugee also like to have a job? I think refugees are much like most people. Ie, they want a job.

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.

Because entire communities could be lifted wholesale as one unit from the camps in Turkey and Lebanon. If you have a group of Syrians where everybody knows each other (from Syria) then you've made life extremely simply for yourself. You just need to check a couple from the entire group and you can be certain they're all Syrians. It's also good to keep communities together. It makes for a happier and more economically productive migrant. What you also do is remove incentives to travel illegally through Europe. It will of course fuel the criminal economy. We want less of this.

People respond to incentives. Let's change the incentives in a way that helps everybody.

 

[DrZoidberg]

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).

While efficient it violates UNHCR rules. The risk is that those performing refugee triage will favour whatever ethnic group they belong to.

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.

There's zero shortage of housing in Sweden. Sweden is one of the world's most urbanised countries in the world. The country is full of derelict and abandoned buildings that could easily be done up. Which is what has been happening. What has made taking in refugees so expensive has to do with various hoops and rules they state has imposed on themselves, which are too complicated to go into. But those rules could easily be just done away with and then problem solved.

 

[bilby]

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.

Look at the map I posted earlier.

Imagine ten times as much red on that map - it would all still fit easily in the coastal/hinterland strip between Brisbane and Sydney. And that would represent 100 million people.

Australia hasn't got the carrying capacity of, say the continental US (which is a similar size); but it could easily carry a third of the US population.

Amongst our major exports are meat and wheat. Australia is already feeding around 100 million people; they just happen to live somewhere else.

Nobody needs to live on the Nullarbor or in the Great Sandy Desert in order to fit them in.

Seriously, you can subtract all the desert and semi-desert, and still be left with a shitload of very sparsely populated, high quality land.

It's even in our national anthem. Which doesn't say "We've boundless plains to keep to ourselves, because fuck foreigners".

Perhaps you could look up the actual words some time, and have a think about them.

 

[angelo]

Goody! Lets open the borders and let them all flood in. Of course you're willing to pay the taxes required to feed and house all these people?

 

[DrZoidberg]

Goody! Lets open the borders and let them all flood in. Of course you're willing to pay the taxes required to feed and house all these people?

You constantly keep forgetting that these people are refugees. There's a war on and we've all signed charters where we've promised to help out.

 

[bigfield]

Goody! Lets open the borders and let them all flood in. Of course you're willing to pay the taxes required to feed and house all these people?

It would be cheaper than the offshore detention program we are currently paying for.

Plus, these people could actually contribute to the economy, just as migrants have done throughout our country's history.

My partner's grandfather migrated to Australia at the age of sixteen, following the Second World War in Germany. He was an economic migrant, fleeing a country that was devastated by war (and would only recover to its current prosperity thanks to the Marshall Plan). He didn't have any job skills and did not speak English. He and his friends (also economic migrants fleeing war-torn Germany) all studied in Australia to become tradesmen and became a productive part of the country.

Today, we pay a fortune for tradesmen because they are scarce, and yet we are throwing people in offshore camps rather than giving them the same opportunity we afforded to people 70 years ago. That is complete insanity.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Goody! Lets open the borders and let them all flood in. Of course you're willing to pay the taxes required to feed and house all these people?

It would be cheaper than the offshore detention program we are currently paying for.

Plus, these people could actually contribute to the economy, just as migrants have done throughout our country's history.

My partner's grandfather migrated to Australia at the age of sixteen, following the Second World War in Germany. He was an economic migrant, fleeing a country that was devastated by war (and would only recover to its current prosperity thanks to the Marshall Plan). He didn't have any job skills and did not speak English. He and his friends (also economic migrants fleeing war-torn Germany) all studied in Australia to become tradesmen and became a productive part of the country.

Today, we pay a fortune for tradesmen because they are scarce, and yet we are throwing people in offshore camps rather than giving them the same opportunity we afforded to people 70 years ago. That is complete insanity.

For economic migrants there's a lot more in Australia than at the end of the War.

At the end of the war and for several years later, Australia was advertising for people t emigrate. Now things are different. What is wrong with training the unemployed Australians? The unemployment rate is around 5 to 6 per cent but this does not take into account those on zero contracts.

There is plenty of building to be done in Africa and India so why does Australia need to let them.

As for asylum seekers this is something different. They can be processed and given Asylum. Cambodia doesn't seem to be a goer as only about 4 people were accepted so far (unless this has been updated).

 

[Jayjay]

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.

The system in Sweden now is that we only accept people with proper paperwork...

Sorry, I seriously doubt that. If someone comes to Swedish border without papers and asks for asylum, Sweden will have to process that. That's obligatory by international treaties. The border checks only deter people who A) are seeking to enter the country illegally, or B) are only passing through to seek asylum in some other country.

... and the fast track is going to reception centers with zero financial incentives. They're forbidden from working. So I guess you're happy? BTW, the fast track is sitting on your ass a minimum of 18 months waiting to be processed. That's the fastest track. This is due to UNHCR rules. The rules are put in place to prevent corruption, bribery and unfairness. It's slow, but they are very fair and rigorous.

Indeed, and I don't have a problem with the UNHCR refugee track (except that the quotas are too low). As far as I'm concerned, anyone coming through that is as good as having papers. The problem is uncontrolled migration directly to target nations that bypasses the rigor and has opportunists mixed in with those in real need of asylum.

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.

Why wouldn't a refugee also like to have a job? I think refugees are much like most people. Ie, they want a job.

Are they going to go back to Syria if they can't have a job immediately? I doubt the real refugees would, but that would weed out the opportunists posing as refugees.

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.

Because entire communities could be lifted wholesale as one unit from the camps in Turkey and Lebanon. If you have a group of Syrians where everybody knows each other (from Syria) then you've made life extremely simply for yourself. You just need to check a couple from the entire group and you can be certain they're all Syrians. It's also good to keep communities together. It makes for a happier and more economically productive migrant. What you also do is remove incentives to travel illegally through Europe. It will of course fuel the criminal economy. We want less of this.

I doubt you can lift off and process entire communities any more easily. People still need to be in line and processed one by one, and it's not like you can take a hundred people together and ask everyone of them if they know the other 99 or something. There would still be need for the same bureocracy and same rigorous checks as there is when processing migrants in Europe, or when UNHCR does it. The elimination of the trafficking industry would of course be a plus so even if everything else remained the same, European countries should allow asylum to be applied even outside its borders.

People respond to incentives. Let's change the incentives in a way that helps everybody.

Right, which is why the incentives to cheat by "losing" one's papers and lying about one's age or country of origin should be removed. People should get rewarded for having good papers and reliable proof of their origin.

 

[DrZoidberg]

The system in Sweden now is that we only accept people with proper paperwork...

Sorry, I seriously doubt that. If someone comes to Swedish border without papers and asks for asylum, Sweden will have to process that. That's obligatory by international treaties. The border checks only deter people who A) are seeking to enter the country illegally, or B) are only passing through to seek asylum in some other country.

I actually checked it out. Asylum seekers with no papers are let into the country. They just need to say they're refugees on the train over. So not as bad as I thought. Thanks for questioning it. Gave me a reason to check it out a little bit more carefully. Don't know how this system works though.

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.

Why wouldn't a refugee also like to have a job? I think refugees are much like most people. Ie, they want a job.

Are they going to go back to Syria if they can't have a job immediately? I doubt the real refugees would, but that would weed out the opportunists posing as refugees.

There's more important things that jobs. I have quite a few friends who fled Bosnia who haven't gone back. As far as they are concerned their home county was obliterated in that war. They don't recognise it. For them there's nothing to "go back" to. One friend does go back on holiday now and again. I'm not sure what happened to her but she's deeply traumatised from the war and the escape. She lost her father. She only goes back as some sort of therapy. But she's go crazy from anxiety if she would put down roots in Bosnia permanently. She just can't take it. Wars aren't pretty. I suggest a gentle touch here.

People respond to incentives. Let's change the incentives in a way that helps everybody.

Right, which is why the incentives to cheat by "losing" one's papers and lying about one's age or country of origin should be removed. People should get rewarded for having good papers and reliable proof of their origin.

I'd rather not make refugees targets for criminals who want to steal genuine Syrian papers. They're a vulnerable group as it is already. Nor give refugees more shit to keep track of.

 

[TSwizzle]

There's zero shortage of housing in Sweden. Sweden is one of the world's most urbanised countries in the world. The country is full of derelict and abandoned buildings that could easily be done up. Which is what has been happening.

Essentially providing the barracks for the advance guard. Good work agent habib.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

View attachment 5675

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

The problem isn't land area, the problem is resources.

 

[bilby]

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

The problem isn't land area, the problem is resources.

Google: "Australia resources boom". I dare you.

We are a MASSIVE exporter of resources; minerals, wheat, beef, lamb, sugar, the list is practically endless.

This continent not only COULD support a much higher population than it has at present; it ALREADY DOES - they just don't all live here.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The problem isn't land area, the problem is resources.

Google: "Australia resources boom". I dare you.

We are a MASSIVE exporter of resources; minerals, wheat, beef, lamb, sugar, the list is practically endless.

This continent not only COULD support a much higher population than it has at present; it ALREADY DOES - they just don't all live here.

Australia is for the most part desert. Desert doesn't have many people because of water.

 

[beero1000]

Google: "Australia resources boom". I dare you.

We are a MASSIVE exporter of resources; minerals, wheat, beef, lamb, sugar, the list is practically endless.

This continent not only COULD support a much higher population than it has at present; it ALREADY DOES - they just don't all live here.

Australia is for the most part desert. Desert doesn't have many people because of water.

Who is advocating settling large numbers of people in a desert?

 

[bigfield]

Google: "Australia resources boom". I dare you.

We are a MASSIVE exporter of resources; minerals, wheat, beef, lamb, sugar, the list is practically endless.

This continent not only COULD support a much higher population than it has at present; it ALREADY DOES - they just don't all live here.

Australia is for the most part desert. Desert doesn't have many people because of water.

You get a C- for Australian Geography and an F for reading comprehension.

Australia is mostly desert, but as Bilby expressly stated, the fertile hinterland near the coast has plenty of capacity for human settlement.

 

[whichphilosophy]

The problem isn't land area, the problem is resources.

Google: "Australia resources boom". I dare you.

We are a MASSIVE exporter of resources; minerals, wheat, beef, lamb, sugar, the list is practically endless.

This continent not only COULD support a much higher population than it has at present; it ALREADY DOES - they just don't all live here.

Africa is abundant resources such as iron, gold, uranium, copper, cobalt bauxite, platinum, titanium silver, oil,nuts,diamonds plus abundane in fruits, wood with many countries abundant in rich arable land. Corrupt governments have allowed allowed Western monopolies exploit some these resources. Even where the governments are in full control of such resources, the wealth does not filter through the hands and pockets of corrupt administrations

Nearly all of the Western Nations and Australia are giving overseas aid. These nations need to be tougher on their own companies but with that said, the problem will still be poverty induced by corruption. The solution is not to empty Africa into Australia apart from genuine asylum seekers.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Africa is abundant resources such as iron, gold, uranium, copper, cobalt bauxite, platinum, titanium silver, oil,nuts,diamonds plus abundane in fruits, wood with many countries abundant in rich arable land. Corrupt governments have allowed allowed Western monopolies exploit some these resources. Even where the governments are in full control of such resources, the wealth does not filter through the hands and pockets of corrupt administrations

Nearly all of the Western Nations and Australia are giving overseas aid. These nations need to be tougher on their own companies but with that said, the problem will still be poverty induced by corruption. The solution is not to empty Africa into Australia apart from genuine asylum seekers.

I don't think you can pin African corruption on Western meddling. The colonial powers set up African mono-economies. Ie one country only producing one thing. That has led to enormous poverty in Africa and which the west should be ashamed of. But that's different than blaming the west for natural resources creating corruption.

As far as corruption goes the west was exactly the same as Africa before democracy. All European countries had extraordinarily corrupt and dysfunctional cleptocracies. Nobles squabbled over natural resources like maffia bosses. So what colonial power could we blame our dysfunction on? Sweden as a nation pretty much stems from control over one copper mine in the center of the country (Falun).

A modern country where rule of law is the norm and corruption is under control is very hard to achieve. The more natural resources and the more those natural resources are concentrated in a small area the harder it is. Africa has a lot of that. It's not poverty induced corruption. It's oddly enough wealth induced corruption. The corruption prevents the wealth lift people out of poverty.

I don't think we need to feel ashamed of this. We could still help Africa deal with their corruption. But we don't need to take the blame and fall on the sword for every little thing Africa is having problems with.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Africa is abundant resources such as iron, gold, uranium, copper, cobalt bauxite, platinum, titanium silver, oil,nuts,diamonds plus abundane in fruits, wood with many countries abundant in rich arable land. Corrupt governments have allowed allowed Western monopolies exploit some these resources. Even where the governments are in full control of such resources, the wealth does not filter through the hands and pockets of corrupt administrations

Nearly all of the Western Nations and Australia are giving overseas aid. These nations need to be tougher on their own companies but with that said, the problem will still be poverty induced by corruption. The solution is not to empty Africa into Australia apart from genuine asylum seekers.

I don't think you can pin African corruption on Western meddling. The colonial powers set up African mono-economies. Ie one country only producing one thing. That has led to enormous poverty in Africa and which the west should be ashamed of. But that's different than blaming the west for natural resources creating corruption.

As far as corruption goes the west was exactly the same as Africa before democracy. All European countries had extraordinarily corrupt and dysfunctional cleptocracies. Nobles squabbled over natural resources like maffia bosses. So what colonial power could we blame our dysfunction on? Sweden as a nation pretty much stems from control over one copper mine in the center of the country (Falun).

A modern country where rule of law is the norm and corruption is under control is very hard to achieve. The more natural resources and the more those natural resources are concentrated in a small area the harder it is. Africa has a lot of that. It's not poverty induced corruption. It's oddly enough wealth induced corruption. The corruption prevents the wealth lift people out of poverty.

I don't think we need to feel ashamed of this. We could still help Africa deal with their corruption. But we don't need to take the blame and fall on the sword for every little thing Africa is having problems with.

Actually there are two issues corruption and exploitation that do not always cross over but sometimes do. Some of the most brilliant people I've met are Africans (especially Ibos) who are highly educated but end up working abroad. Your last point is correct.

 

[angelo]

Is the West to blame for the vast corruption of practically the whole African continent?