Europe submits voluntarily

[DrZoidberg]

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

I'm actually ok with this. Free speech and all that. I read Mein Kempf as a teenager. I've still never been a Nazi. Also the Satanic Bible. Never a Satanist either. I think you're not giving the Moslem kids enough credit. We all have a right to inform ourselves... yes, even of really bad ideas.

 

[bigfield]

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!

Despite having access to the SONA report, you are still making claims that are contradicted by that report.

The claim that "most likely more than 80% are still freeloading off the public purse" is ignorant rubbish.

The report states that 85% of respondents receive Centrelink payments. This includes Newstart, Austudy, Youth Allowance and child care rebates. Of course, bigots like you jumped to the conclusion that 100% of the recipients were unemployed and receiving Newstart (or 'freeloading off the public purse' as you put it), because that is the impression that opinion columnists like Bolt and Benson aimed to create, and that is the conlcusion that aligns with your prejudices.

The report only covers refugees who have been settled in Australia for between 1 and 5 years. It has no data on payments made to refugees who have been in Australia for longer than 5 years. What the data does show is that with each passing year since their arrival, a smaller percentage of refugees receives Centrelink benefits. That is, as time goes by, settled refugees find full-time work, find better-paying work, finish their education courses etc.

To further debunk the hateful lie that "more than 80% are still freeloading off the public purse", the report also shows that after five years, 40% of refugees have jobs. And if they have jobs then they certainly shouldn't be accused of freeloading. In fact only about 12% of refugees are unemployed, while many of those without jobs are full-time caregivers (like my mum was when I was little), full-time students (like many young Australians), or volunteer workers (like my partner's father who was made redundant).

The reports even goes on to show that only 3.3% of refugees are unemployed and are not looking for work. That's a tiny 3.3% of refugees who have been in Australia for between 1 and 5 years. Those are your freeloaders.

Why couldn't your figure that out for yourself? Are you more comfortable believing the readily-falsifiable lies told by newspaper opinion writers?

 

[dystopian]

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.

...

And this demonstrates that it's less than $2 dollars out of pocket for tax-paying Australians, how?

 

[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!

Despite having access to the SONA report, you are still making claims that are contradicted by that report.

The claim that "most likely more than 80% are still freeloading off the public purse" is ignorant rubbish.

The report states that 85% of respondents receive Centrelink payments. This includes Newstart, Austudy, Youth Allowance and child care rebates. Of course, bigots like you jumped to the conclusion that 100% of the recipients were unemployed and receiving Newstart (or 'freeloading off the public purse' as you put it), because that is the impression that opinion columnists like Bolt and Benson aimed to create, and that is the conlcusion that aligns with your prejudices.

The report only covers refugees who have been settled in Australia for between 1 and 5 years. It has no data on payments made to refugees who have been in Australia for longer than 5 years. What the data does show is that with each passing year since their arrival, a smaller percentage of refugees receives Centrelink benefits. That is, as time goes by, settled refugees find full-time work, find better-paying work, finish their education courses etc.

To further debunk the hateful lie that "more than 80% are still freeloading off the public purse", the report also shows that after five years, 40% of refugees have jobs. And if they have jobs then they certainly shouldn't be accused of freeloading. In fact only about 12% of refugees are unemployed, while many of those without jobs are full-time caregivers (like my mum was when I was little), full-time students (like many young Australians), or volunteer workers (like my partner's father who was made redundant).

The reports even goes on to show that only 3.3% of refugees are unemployed and are not looking for work. That's a tiny 3.3% of refugees who have been in Australia for between 1 and 5 years. Those are your freeloaders.

Why couldn't your figure that out for yourself? Are you more comfortable believing the readily-falsifiable lies told by newspaper opinion writers?

So the immigration department report is hogwash is it? I see! There are figures and there are damn figures! Join the two together and you come up with an idea that the islamasation of Australia is good for us and the country, even though almost every week there's another terrorist attack. We're just supposed to ignore, that as like Bilby said, there's more chance of one getting run over by a bus than by dying at the hands of a terrorist.

 

[bilby]

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!

Despite having access to the SONA report, you are still making claims that are contradicted by that report.

The claim that "most likely more than 80% are still freeloading off the public purse" is ignorant rubbish.

The report states that 85% of respondents receive Centrelink payments. This includes Newstart, Austudy, Youth Allowance and child care rebates. Of course, bigots like you jumped to the conclusion that 100% of the recipients were unemployed and receiving Newstart (or 'freeloading off the public purse' as you put it), because that is the impression that opinion columnists like Bolt and Benson aimed to create, and that is the conlcusion that aligns with your prejudices.

The report only covers refugees who have been settled in Australia for between 1 and 5 years. It has no data on payments made to refugees who have been in Australia for longer than 5 years. What the data does show is that with each passing year since their arrival, a smaller percentage of refugees receives Centrelink benefits. That is, as time goes by, settled refugees find full-time work, find better-paying work, finish their education courses etc.

To further debunk the hateful lie that "more than 80% are still freeloading off the public purse", the report also shows that after five years, 40% of refugees have jobs. And if they have jobs then they certainly shouldn't be accused of freeloading. In fact only about 12% of refugees are unemployed, while many of those without jobs are full-time caregivers (like my mum was when I was little), full-time students (like many young Australians), or volunteer workers (like my partner's father who was made redundant).

The reports even goes on to show that only 3.3% of refugees are unemployed and are not looking for work. That's a tiny 3.3% of refugees who have been in Australia for between 1 and 5 years. Those are your freeloaders.

Why couldn't your figure that out for yourself? Are you more comfortable believing the readily-falsifiable lies told by newspaper opinion writers?

So the immigration department report is hogwash is it? I see! There are figures and there are damn figures! Join the two together and you come up with an idea that the islamasation of Australia is good for us and the country, even though almost every week there's another terrorist attack. We're just supposed to ignore, that as like Bilby said, there's more chance of one getting run over by a bus than by dying at the hands of a terrorist.

Have you been out in the sun? Perhaps a lie down in a cool, dark room would be a good idea?

 

[KeepTalking]

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?

Why do you suppose that posting a link previously, which may have contained relevant facts, in some way excuses the fact that you posted this link to an opinion piece directly after chiding someone for not being able to recognize facts?

 

[KeepTalking]

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.

Fair enough.

An opinion can include facts, but in this case the opinion piece was actually devoid of relevant facts, and highly misleading. There are certainly some figures thrown about, but they are wholly un-sourced. There are figures in the opening paragraph that are likely legitimate, but these are the figures he is arguing against. In his arguments against, he offers percentages, always prefaced with the word "about", and of course they are unsourced (meaning pulled directly from his ass). As has already been noted by another poster, he also conflates refugees with asylum seekers.

This is not exactly what someone who is chastising others for not being able to recognize facts should be posting to bolster their argument.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

PNACkos

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.

The Neo-Condi Wars turned dirtbags into duststorms.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Partition OPEC and Islam Will Be Destroyed

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.

Allah Is All About Oil

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

La-Dee-Da in Adelaide

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!

Despite having access to the SONA report, you are still making claims that are contradicted by that report.

The claim that "most likely more than 80% are still freeloading off the public purse" is ignorant rubbish.

The report states that 85% of respondents receive Centrelink payments. This includes Newstart, Austudy, Youth Allowance and child care rebates. Of course, bigots like you jumped to the conclusion that 100% of the recipients were unemployed and receiving Newstart (or 'freeloading off the public purse' as you put it), because that is the impression that opinion columnists like Bolt and Benson aimed to create, and that is the conlcusion that aligns with your prejudices.

The report only covers refugees who have been settled in Australia for between 1 and 5 years. It has no data on payments made to refugees who have been in Australia for longer than 5 years. What the data does show is that with each passing year since their arrival, a smaller percentage of refugees receives Centrelink benefits. That is, as time goes by, settled refugees find full-time work, find better-paying work, finish their education courses etc.

To further debunk the hateful lie that "more than 80% are still freeloading off the public purse", the report also shows that after five years, 40% of refugees have jobs. And if they have jobs then they certainly shouldn't be accused of freeloading. In fact only about 12% of refugees are unemployed, while many of those without jobs are full-time caregivers (like my mum was when I was little), full-time students (like many young Australians), or volunteer workers (like my partner's father who was made redundant).

The reports even goes on to show that only 3.3% of refugees are unemployed and are not looking for work. That's a tiny 3.3% of refugees who have been in Australia for between 1 and 5 years. Those are your freeloaders.

Why couldn't your figure that out for yourself? Are you more comfortable believing the readily-falsifiable lies told by newspaper opinion writers?

Then start a group called Terrorist Lives Matter. It will enhance your self-righteous feeling of moral superiority to the bogans.

 

[bigfield]

Despite having access to the SONA report, you are still making claims that are contradicted by that report.

The claim that "most likely more than 80% are still freeloading off the public purse" is ignorant rubbish.

The report states that 85% of respondents receive Centrelink payments. This includes Newstart, Austudy, Youth Allowance and child care rebates. Of course, bigots like you jumped to the conclusion that 100% of the recipients were unemployed and receiving Newstart (or 'freeloading off the public purse' as you put it), because that is the impression that opinion columnists like Bolt and Benson aimed to create, and that is the conlcusion that aligns with your prejudices.

The report only covers refugees who have been settled in Australia for between 1 and 5 years. It has no data on payments made to refugees who have been in Australia for longer than 5 years. What the data does show is that with each passing year since their arrival, a smaller percentage of refugees receives Centrelink benefits. That is, as time goes by, settled refugees find full-time work, find better-paying work, finish their education courses etc.

To further debunk the hateful lie that "more than 80% are still freeloading off the public purse", the report also shows that after five years, 40% of refugees have jobs. And if they have jobs then they certainly shouldn't be accused of freeloading. In fact only about 12% of refugees are unemployed, while many of those without jobs are full-time caregivers (like my mum was when I was little), full-time students (like many young Australians), or volunteer workers (like my partner's father who was made redundant).

The reports even goes on to show that only 3.3% of refugees are unemployed and are not looking for work. That's a tiny 3.3% of refugees who have been in Australia for between 1 and 5 years. Those are your freeloaders.

Why couldn't your figure that out for yourself? Are you more comfortable believing the readily-falsifiable lies told by newspaper opinion writers?

So the immigration department report is hogwash is it? I see! There are figures and there are damn figures! Join the two together and you come up with an idea that the islamasation of Australia is good for us and the country, even though almost every week there's another terrorist attack. We're just supposed to ignore, that as like Bilby said, there's more chance of one getting run over by a bus than by dying at the hands of a terrorist.

That is raving nonsense.

I have no idea how you interpreted my post as implying that the SONA report is 'hogwash'. I can only assume you haven't read it, and perhaps haven't even viewed the document.

"Figures and damn figures"? Well there are the figures that Angelo makes up or blindly copies from his favourite opinion columnist, and then there are the figures provided by the ASRG for the Department of Immigration. It's fairly clear that the former are the 'damn figures' you're referring to.

As Dystopian has pointed out, your fears regarding the Islamisation of Western World are based on ignorance and really poor math. Firstly, the Muslim population is not growing nearly as fast as you fantasise. Secondly, there is absolutely no evidence to suggest that Muslims are capable of reversing the increasing proportion of irreligious people in the world. Islam will never trump atheism/agnosticism in the Internet Age, when knowledge is widely available and the political concept of personal liberty has taken root. Sharia law doesn't stand a chance in the West.

It is cowardly to exaggerate the threat of terrorism in order to prevent refugees from settling in Australia. It is unbelievably stupid to complain that settled refugees are expensive to support when the camp on Manus Island costs more by an order of magnitude.

 

[TSwizzle]

Despite the misgivings of the citizenry and the obvious difficulties of trying to accommodate the "refugees", Merkel charges full steam ahead with the white flag of surrender. (sub)mission accomplished agent Merkel;

The realities of shouldering Europe’s refugee crisis are coming home to Germany, amid daily reports of clashes in asylum seeker homes; bureaucrats overwhelmed by a backlog of registration claims and deep divisions within chancellor Angela Merkel’s conservative ranks over how to manage the enormity of the challenge.

Just weeks after Merkel responded to the refugee crisis with the declaration: “Wir schaffen es – We can do it” – the euphoric mood has been replaced by a more sombre response with the realisation that the newcomers are here to stay, with all the consequences that entails.

Latest estimates, so far unconfirmed by the government, are that Germany might expect as many as 1.5 million refugees by the end of the year, mostly from Syria, Afghanistan and Iraq.

Guardian

The Guardian, still calling them refugees. How quaint.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

Iraq was attacked because it has too much oil? A weapon for what? We were buying oil from Iraq in the first place at a reasonable price.

 

[whichphilosophy]

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.

Allah Is All About Oil

Our destruction of Arab countries is about oil. We removed governments bad as they were and by destroying the infrastructures of these companies created a vacuum for all these Jihadists. Of course those in the West who predicted this were idiots until their forecasts came true.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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?

Because that's your fantasy of the cause. Islam has always been Jihadist. The amount of Jihad we see from them is related to their ability to commit Jihad.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

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

I'm actually ok with this. Free speech and all that. I read Mein Kempf as a teenager. I've still never been a Nazi. Also the Satanic Bible. Never a Satanist either. I think you're not giving the Moslem kids enough credit. We all have a right to inform ourselves... yes, even of really bad ideas.

The problem is that we are at war with the Jihadists. Teaching Jihad is enemy recruiting.

By Geneva rules it would be perfectly legal to simply execute the Imams doing it.


It's a very different case than Mein Kempf--we aren't at war with the Nazis.

 

[arkirk]

Why do you not include intrusion by the West?

Because that's your fantasy of the cause. Islam has always been Jihadist. The amount of Jihad we see from them is related to their ability to commit Jihad.

Even if what you say is correct about Islam always being Jihadist, it has has a long time on the world stage and shows no possibility of actually conquering the world. It is dated and anachronistic. By dwelling on this, you too bring anachronisms to the table...the same Jihadism as they bring, the same violence and the same idiocy that you can somehow kill those who oppose you and they will just vanish from the scene. That is part of your blindness and as long as we have dealt with this issue, you never move too far from recommending military style violence and totalitarian repression of those who oppose your own neo liberal industrialization concept of social development.

 

[skepticalbip]

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.

Iraq was attacked because it has too much oil? A weapon for what? We were buying oil from Iraq in the first place at a reasonable price.

I think Loren is referring to Iraq overrunning Kuwait to take their oil fields and trying to annex Saudi oil fields. We fought them in Saudi Arabia after they crossed the border from Kuwait which they had already taken. We then pushed them from Kuwait then proceeded to eliminate the regime in Baghdad.

If Iraq had been able to keep the Kuwaiti oil fields and taken the Saudi oil fields added to the Iraqi oil then Saddam would, indeed, have had control of a large percentage of the world oil supply.

 

[bilby]

I'm actually ok with this. Free speech and all that. I read Mein Kempf as a teenager. I've still never been a Nazi. Also the Satanic Bible. Never a Satanist either. I think you're not giving the Moslem kids enough credit. We all have a right to inform ourselves... yes, even of really bad ideas.

The problem is that we are at war with the Jihadists. Teaching Jihad is enemy recruiting.

By Geneva rules it would be perfectly legal to simply execute the Imams doing it.


It's a very different case than Mein Kempf--we aren't at war with the Nazis.

Really? Who is 'we'? The USA is not at war with anyone - the last time Congress declared war was in 1941.

The so-called 'War on terror' is just rhetoric; The Geneva rules do not apply to rhetorical devices.

 

[angelo]

Because that's your fantasy of the cause. Islam has always been Jihadist. The amount of Jihad we see from them is related to their ability to commit Jihad.

Even if what you say is correct about Islam always being Jihadist, it has has a long time on the world stage and shows no possibility of actually conquering the world. It is dated and anachronistic. By dwelling on this, you too bring anachronisms to the table...the same Jihadism as they bring, the same violence and the same idiocy that you can somehow kill those who oppose you and they will just vanish from the scene. That is part of your blindness and as long as we have dealt with this issue, you never move too far from recommending military style violence and totalitarian repression of those who oppose your own neo liberal industrialization concept of social development.

Jihadis like evolution moves very slowly, hardly perceivable. It was Gaddafi who said: Islam will conquer Europe without firing a shot, by mass migration.
I do wish more people would read what to Moslems is their life, namely, the Koran!