Europe submits voluntarily

[arkirk]

I think your math is bullshit.
Assuming EU population 500mil and number of refugees 1mil, that means 1 refugee per 500 people. Now let say one refugee costs $10,000 a year. That means $20 per person. So send me 20 bucks

Angelo and I are in Australia. Our taxes do not go to refugees in Europe, except for the tiny percentage of the UNHCR funding that comes from Australia, a tiny percentage of which goes to their operations in the EU. That figure I have not even attempted to calculate, but I am prepared to bet that it is at least two orders of magnitude less than the direct payments to unemployed asylum seekers in Australia that I am talking about.

You have a huge continent under governance of your ruddy queen. Unemployment is a matter of having a faulty economy, not a few refugees. If your economy cannot meet the needs of your people, maybe you should look into Socialism. Your complaint appears to me to be the product of an economy that sucks and is non inclusive our your entire population. Australia and Canada both have the problem of being dominated by extractive industries that seek to export their polluting products and care little for anything local. The politics are changing in both of your countries...more power to that change.

 

[bilby]

Your tactics are very much like those of a climate change denialist or a creationist: when someone points out that your claim is bullshit, you abandon it (until the next thread) and make some other ridiculous claim.

Sheehan's article does not in any way corroborate your bullshit claim about refugees on welfare. Which means that your claim, which you got from Bolt, is still unsubstantiated.

Perhaps you could read the SONA report available from the Dept of Human Services, where you can get some actual FACTS about refugees instead of remaining wilfully ignorant and hateful.

Because at the moment, you have a twisted idea of who refugees are and what they do. And in the age of the internet you have no excuse for failing to look at anything beyond opinion columns and blogs.

You haven't read, or turn a blind eye to the article I've linked to by Paul Sheehan. He addresses the question of welfare. Who do I believe, an ideologist or a journalist is the question. But you can go check the dep of immigration settlement outcomes yourself.

If you were smart, you wouldn't believe either.

Look at the actual figures. Not some column from three years ago, that was written with the intent of frightening people about the Gillard government's position on asylum seekers.

If you remove the spin, you can see that the numbers presented in that article are consistent with the numbers I presented earlier; except that Sheehan conflates 'refugees' and 'asylum seekers', while the Commonwealth Government is careful to be clear about the difference between these two classifications.

But don't take my word for it - you need to stop believing and start finding out for yourself.

Be brutally honest. Seek reasons to disbelieve what you currently think; assess the partiality and accuracy of the information you find. Ask 'is this person lying to me?', with the emphasis on assuming he is, until he proves otherwise; and on doubting even more if he presents emotional, rather than logical, information.

Assume that everyone is trying to manipulate you and to play on your emotions to achieve their own political goals.

But whatever else you do, please stop BELIEVING, and start LEARNING.

 

[skepticalbip]

I think your math is bullshit.
Assuming EU population 500mil and number of refugees 1mil, that means 1 refugee per 500 people. Now let say one refugee costs $10,000 a year. That means $20 per person. So send me 20 bucks

Angelo and I are in Australia. Our taxes do not go to refugees in Europe, except for the tiny percentage of the UNHCR funding that comes from Australia, a tiny percentage of which goes to their operations in the EU. That figure I have not even attempted to calculate, but I am prepared to bet that it is at least two orders of magnitude less than the direct payments to unemployed asylum seekers in Australia that I am talking about.

Has anyone in your Parliament suggested moving Australia so the refugees can't find you? In the US we had one representative in the House who opposed landing 8,000 Marines on Guam on the grounds that he was afraid that much weight would cause Guam to tip over and sink. Sad to say he was my representative when I lived in his Congressional district.



I marvel and how well that officer kept a straight face and treated the questions as if they were reasonable.

 

[bilby]

Angelo and I are in Australia. Our taxes do not go to refugees in Europe, except for the tiny percentage of the UNHCR funding that comes from Australia, a tiny percentage of which goes to their operations in the EU. That figure I have not even attempted to calculate, but I am prepared to bet that it is at least two orders of magnitude less than the direct payments to unemployed asylum seekers in Australia that I am talking about.

You have a huge continent under governance of your ruddy queen.

Not really; if you look at the powers of the Queen in Australia, you will find that they are very limited indeed, and certainly do not rise to the level of 'governance', in the sense of influencing the economy. The Crown representative, the Governor General, has some rarely used powers to force a change of government; this power has been excercised once, in 1974, and caused such an outcry it is unlikely that it will ever be used again. There is no evidence that the Queen was aware of the GG's actions in advance; Governors General have significant autonomy.

I have no idea why you would think that QEII is 'ruddy' - she apears to be much the same colour as most other Poms.

Unemployment is a matter of having a faulty economy, not a few refugees. If your economy cannot meet the needs of your people, maybe you should look into Socialism. Your complaint appears to me to be the product of an economy that sucks and is non inclusive our your entire population.

I think you have failed to read the exchange to which you are replying; You appear to have concluded from my post that I have a complaint about the cost of unemployed refugees to Australia, where even a cursory reading of the thread would tell you that that is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what I am arguing. We already have one person in the thread who is going off on an unsupported rant based on not bothering to check his facts; please don't become another.

If you want to take exception to my 'complaint', then please at least do me the courtesy of reading what I have written, and determining whether I even have any complaint, before sticking your oar in.

Australia and Canada both have the problem of being dominated by extractive industries that seek to export their polluting products and care little for anything local. The politics are changing in both of your countries...more power to that change.

It appears that you know nothing about Australian politics; Our most recent federal election put in place the most right-wing and incompetent government we have had in a very long time; and the recent change of leadership swapped an incompetent right-wingnut for a competent right-wingnut, which is a major step backwards. If you think installing Malcolm Turnbull as PM is a step towards socialism, then you really are not qualified to have an opinion at all.

 

[Jokodo]

This Inman believes that Europe is taking in too many Muslims and Muslim countries are not taking in any or enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oImkFVDDoE

Argument by youtube?

Also, I probably should keep in mind that Turkey (estimated 2 million Syrian refugees) isn't a Muslim country at all, next time someone babbles that Turkey can't become part of Europe because Europe blabla Christian foundations blabla.

 

[Jayjay]

The answer is to give these people their own countries to operate and take care of ourselves. The more we mess with these countries with policies like "regime change" the more we simply open up new power vacuums that seem to be occupied by nastier and nastier forms of governance...eg ISIS, al Qaeda, al Nusra, etc. etc. etc. These all base their recruitment on the need to stave off our assault on their sovereignty. These outfits are vaprous and cruel and have no real social policies. They will fall of their own shortcomings and do not require shock and awe to dispose of them.

This is wishful thinking. Syria, Iran, Libya and other regimes that were not supported by US have shown that dictatorships can survive just fine for decades if left to their own devices, and every dictatorship in history of mankind has used external enemies as an excuse to stay in power.

Iraqi people had a chance to run their own country after Americans withdrew, and they blew it all on their own.

 

[Jayjay]

This Inman believes that Europe is taking in too many Muslims and Muslim countries are not taking in any or enough.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oImkFVDDoE

Argument by youtube?

Also, I probably should keep in mind that Turkey (estimated 2 million Syrian refugees) isn't a Muslim country at all, next time someone babbles that Turkey can't become part of Europe because Europe blabla Christian foundations blabla.

Turkey isn't really taking those refugees. They're just holding them in camps until further notice.

 

[angelo]

You wouldn't recognise facts if they slapped you in the face!
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ees-is-worse-than-fiction-20120729-2369z.html

Apparently, neither can you, as your link is entirely devoid of them, and even a cursory glance at the url reveals what it actually is:
www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/the-truth-on-refugees-is-worse-than-fiction-20120729-2369z.html

"Political-opinion", quite the opposite of fact, don't you think?

I have also posted a link to the department of immigration on outcomes. Are their figures opinions as well?

 

[angelo]

As for cost, its vastly more than $2 per annum. http://www.refugeeaction.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Detention-cost-per-person-NCOA.png

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Retaliation for what? We hadn't done anything that actually harmed Bin Laden's interests.

What happened is that he saw that we would stand in the way of his plans and thus he realized he had to drive us off first.

Nothing will justify 911 but the motivations of the people who did it are mainly the presence of the US in their homeland.

US bases in Saudi Arabia

No. That was an excuse. The real reason was US forces in Saudi Arabia meant that he couldn't expect us to leave him alone to conquer the Muslim lands.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

And that's why you're not bumping your head off the floor five times a day. What, you thought it was a coincidence that islamic aggression was at an ebb these past few centuries ? Sorry to inform you but normal service has been restored.

So-called Islamic aggression intensifies with the intrusion of Israel into the ME and with the meddling of foreign powers into the affairs of Middle Eastern countries, as when the US and British removed the elected leader of Iran.

The explanation is simple:

1) Mobility. The average Jihadi of the 18th century lacked the ability to go somewhere to commit Jihad.

2) Technology. It's now a lot easier to preach Jihad to the masses.

3) Oil money. They have more money to fund Jihad.

 

[untermensche]

So-called Islamic aggression intensifies with the intrusion of Israel into the ME and with the meddling of foreign powers into the affairs of Middle Eastern countries, as when the US and British removed the elected leader of Iran.

The explanation is simple:

1) Mobility. The average Jihadi of the 18th century lacked the ability to go somewhere to commit Jihad.

2) Technology. It's now a lot easier to preach Jihad to the masses.

3) Oil money. They have more money to fund Jihad.

Why do you not include intrusion by the West?

That is far greater after the discovery of oil than before.

You have the discovery of oil and the Israeli foreign intrusion. And all the things done to secure the control of oil and protect Israel.

These are the events that ultimately bring us to where we are today.

The US overthrowing of a secular democracy in Iran and support of a religiously fanatical Saudi regime are probably the two biggest reasons for the widespread religious fanaticism we see today in the region.

 

[angelo]

,jihad and radically is taught in mosques right under our noses.

 

[untermensche]

,jihad and radically is taught in mosques right under our noses.

And hospitals in Afghanistan are being bombed too.

 

[bilby]

As for cost, its vastly more than $2 per annum. http://www.refugeeaction.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Detention-cost-per-person-NCOA.png

For fuck's sake.

Those are the costs PER ASYLUM SEEKER of the different ways in which they are treated.

the $2 per annum figure is the cost PER TAXPAYER of funding Newstart and Income Support for those people granted visas. - the last bar on that graph shows the same thing on a per asylum seeker basis, and as there are over 10 million workers in Australia paying taxes to support only a few thousand asylum seekers with residency who qualify for benefits, obviously the amount PER ASYLUM SEEKER is far more than the amount PER TAXPAYER.

Your share, as a taxpayer, of those costs is probably less than $2 per annum - unless you are so dumb as to insist on continuing mandatory detention, in which case your share would be much larger.

Your graph shows the difference in cost of Onshore, Offshore, and Community detention, as opposed to simply granting bridging visas to asylum seekers. As you could see if you knew how to read your own graphs, Offshore detention costs about 15 times as much as granting a visa - so your $2 per annum blows out to more like $30 per annum if you insist on sending refugees to Manus Island.

Seriously; You need to stop. You need to go away and learn:

How to add, subtract, multiply and divide;
How to read the titles and axis labels on a graph;
What the difference is between 'opinion' and 'fact'; and
How to ignore your gut feeling, and follow the facts regardless of where they lead.

ONLY then will you be able to contribute to this debate.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I guess you missed Iraq and Afghanistan? If we are taking turns, surely it is someone else's now...

Those lucrative adventures weren't part of the War on Islam. Iraq was punished for lowering Big Oil's profits and Afghanistan was occupied as an outpost against the Russian Federation. Seize Muzzie oil and the savages can take their next turn fighting us with sticks and stones, the only weapons they'll be able to afford.

Iraq got stomped on because having too much of the oil in the hands of one country would have made the oil weapon far more powerful.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

https://www.dss.gov.au/our-respo...cations/settlement-outcomes-of-new-arrivals

That's a 100 page document. Please indicate what's important, or quote it!

- - - Updated - - -

You wouldn't recognise facts if they slapped you in the face!
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ees-is-worse-than-fiction-20120729-2369z.html

Apparently, neither can you, as your link is entirely devoid of them, and even a cursory glance at the url reveals what it actually is:
www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/the-truth-on-refugees-is-worse-than-fiction-20120729-2369z.html

"Political-opinion", quite the opposite of fact, don't you think?

"Opinion" isn't the opposite of fact, it's just not as solid as the news section.

 

[angelo]

That's a 100 page document. Please indicate what's important, or quote it!

- - - Updated - - -

You wouldn't recognise facts if they slapped you in the face!
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...ees-is-worse-than-fiction-20120729-2369z.html

Apparently, neither can you, as your link is entirely devoid of them, and even a cursory glance at the url reveals what it actually is:
www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/the-truth-on-refugees-is-worse-than-fiction-20120729-2369z.html

"Political-opinion", quite the opposite of fact, don't you think?

"Opinion" isn't the opposite of fact, it's just not as solid as the news section.

The main focus we're interested in is my claim that up to, and most likely more than 80% are still freeloading off the public purse, and unlike Bilby's claim that it cost less than $2 per year per person is utter bullshit.
Paragraph 4. And I quote. "Of the migration streams represented in this survey, Humanitarian entrants are most likely to be unemployed, even after five years of settlement. ". End quote.
The facts are all there in the PDF that anyone can download!

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think it's populistic tripe. It's not like there aren't people who have studied immigration. We have plenty of research. All of it positive. Immigration is always good. Even short term problems are rare and minute. But it's normal to be xenophobic. I think she's just using that to get votes. Cynical and populistic.

Yep, immigration of Europeans to the New World in the 1500s was good for the indigenous people.

ha ha. Well... I'm talking modern immigration. ca 1850 onward. Post industrial immigration.

But well played.

Yep, immigration of Europeans to Palestine in the 1880s to the 1950s was good for the indigenous people.

The Palestinians of the 19'th century lived in abject poverty. It had a medieval technological level. They don't now. It's hard to make the case they're worse off now. There's also loads of Palestinians living inside Israel. They're doing fine. Way better than their grandparents.

But the natives of Tibet didn't fare so well after the massive immigration of Chinese.

That wasn't immigration. That was an invasion. But even here. Tibet under the Lamas was pretty backward and shitty. China has modernised that country a lot. No, it doesn't justify an invasion, nor does it justify Chinas horrendous human rights record. That's actually an often overlooked detail about invasions. It's rarely all bad. If a country joins a major empire, economically, it's usually nearly all positive.

Arguably, the jewish immigration to Palestine was also an invasion. Albeit long and slow and low key.

 

[DrZoidberg]

ha ha. Well... I'm talking modern immigration. ca 1850 onward. Post industrial immigration.

But well played.

This immigration we are seeing into Europe is largely the result of colonial exploitation of the source countries in the past, then abandonment leading to power vacuums filled by bought and paid for dictators. American and European corporations bought these dictators and supported them till they became so unpopular they could no longer sustain themselves even with American and European support. Past this point attempts at outside European and American hegemony over these countries has become a craps shoot with no winning combinations available. The error of our ways...we keep trying a strategy that became outdated a long time ago and we keep drawing blanks...and retribution. The answer is to give these people their own countries to operate and take care of ourselves. The more we mess with these countries with policies like "regime change" the more we simply open up new power vacuums that seem to be occupied by nastier and nastier forms of governance...eg ISIS, al Qaeda, al Nusra, etc. etc. etc. These all base their recruitment on the need to stave off our assault on their sovereignty. These outfits are vaprous and cruel and have no real social policies. They will fall of their own shortcomings and do not require shock and awe to dispose of them. We need in America alternatives to reliance on sacrifice zone dependent energy policies. We have our work cut out for us and somehow we just keep ignoring the tasks confronting us and seeking some sort of glorious outcome from a totally inglorious conflict in the middle east.

The refugees you are seeing in Europe are as Juan Gonzalez called the latino refugees in the U.S. .....the harvest of empire. You need to cope with that harvest in the absolutely most humane manner you can and stop your denialism. Europe should not resist. Neither should we.

I don't agree at all. You're conflating the social upheaval from the shift from colonialism to independence with the social upheaval of the shift from an agrarian to industrial economy. If you look at Western history this period in our history led both to great wars (especially toward the end of the phase) as well as religious extremism. The development in the Middle-East is almost completely identical to what happened in the west during this same period. We can't blame our wars and conflicts on any colonial rulers.

I personally think that the damage caused by colonialism is largely over-played now. Not everywhere. But most places. Syria is certainly not the fault of colonialism. A thousand years of Ottoman and Seljuk domination just doesn't compare to just forty years of French domination (who where much to weak to govern effectively). Sure, if the French hadn't used the Alawaites as their traitor puppet rulers they wouldn't have been able to seize power in the coup. But if it hadn't been them, it'd have been some other group.