The Daily Wire: Refugees - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 58 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »

Refugees Why are we worrying?

#21 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 22 May 2011 - 07:37 PM

Our behaviour is instilled in us from birth by nature. However each have our relative (level) on which we behave. For example...greed is a natural instinct without it the planet will not progress.That saying was correct "greed is good" However not all of us are of the same level of greed...some are more greedy than others. And so on with all the other instincts...like competition(envy) for example.....once again without it the planet will won't progress.I believe that what the religions define the 'seven deadly sins' are actually natural instincts which assist in the progress of the world. Sex and lust is the same. If there was a 'switch' on planet Earth which instantly switches off sex and lust around the planet and it's used.....the end of mankind as we know it will cease to exist as there will be no more babies born. The present generation of humans will be the final generation which will exist on this planet. And nature does not impose that sex and lust should be practiced in marriage......none of that. No the religions dictate this.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#22 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 24 May 2011 - 07:56 AM

hmm.. greed-driven progress is a particular definition of 'progress,' don't you think? Many of the world's gretest developments [modern democracy, for example] are not greed-driven. Likewise for competition-progress and so on.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#23 User is offline   Marat 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 145
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationSydney, NSW

Posted 25 May 2011 - 05:10 PM

The real example is the abolition of slavery,which shows that greed is not all there is!
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#24 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 25 May 2011 - 07:49 PM

Well put it this way....many of the great inventions (i.e. telephone, radio etc) were driven by greed. Marconi had to be greedy in order to keep going with his inventions. To what extent we do not know. No one does anything for nothing. There is always a certain greed attached to progress.Profit is in the same league. Can you imagine a world where business does not make a profit? Without greed and profit.....we'll still be in the caves.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#25 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 26 May 2011 - 08:14 AM

Not really. Some people do things for altruistic motives, or sheer interest in someting - medicine, physics, etc.

All businesses could be not-for-profit, with workers and managers paid good wages, and still function effectively. This is very common today and has been in the past as well. They might even act a little less rapaciously if there were not outrageous windfalls to be made by 'investors.' So 'progress' - defined as resource exploitation - might be noticeably slower, but it would still proceed.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#26 User is offline   dumbcluck 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1240
  • Joined: 13-January 11

Posted 26 May 2011 - 10:28 AM

This is true...some people have altruistic motives but as I said this is "beautiful nature" at work...remember my theory that every single quality in the human and every living thing on the planet is there for a reason.Pluralism in thought may be one of these qualities you see so nature preserves a balance....this is quite true..some do things for altruistic motives and some with sheer greed do it for extreme profit motives. Between these two extremes there are a numerous people doing it partly for altruistic reasons and partly for profit. Then you have others who do it for less profit and more altruism.....and so forth. The concept finishes up with a mixture.....and nature's objective. To prevent one single thought by all of us on one concept. You will find that this applies in everything...there is alwayson any subject you will find polarisation. Some will agree some will not.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#27 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 26 May 2011 - 03:18 PM

So... it's not all about greed and profit at all then? About nature's intention, if nature is sentient in that way, well then - maybe.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#28 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 24 August 2011 - 10:11 AM

Some interesting figures in part of this article today - seem to bear out the commentary that boat arrivals reflect the trends in worldwide refugee movements more than anything else.

Apparently at this time there are more refugee movements in the world than at any previous time - this would again be consistent with the stream of boat people reaching our shores.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#29 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 06 September 2011 - 10:23 AM

The beat goes on... still no sign of rational debate in either government or opposition about the reality, rather than the politics, of refugees.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#30 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 10 September 2011 - 05:35 PM

View Postscotto, on 24 August 2011 - 10:11 AM, said:

Some interesting figures in part of this article today - seem to bear out the commentary that boat arrivals reflect the trends in worldwide refugee movements more than anything else.

Apparently at this time there are more refugee movements in the world than at any previous time - this would again be consistent with the stream of boat people reaching our shores.


I missed where the article gave figures on trends in worldwide refugee movements, but the included government graph seemed roughly consistent with the government graph I linked earlier. Both show clearly the relative absence of refugees/boats during the last five or so years of the Howard government.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#31 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 10 September 2011 - 05:36 PM

The SMH now agrees that John Howard's policies effectively stopped the boats AND also now supports Gillard's so called "Malaysia solution".

Quote

But the Malaysian option, flying 800 back by plane, amounts to ''virtual tow back'' and is the only option on the table that could be effective.


And much to Bob Brown's chagrin, a senior public servant and his department staff (or "turkeys' as Brown fondly refers to them) are quoted as saying that we'll have London and Paris-style social unrest if a predicted 600 boat people arrived a month in the absence of offshore processing.

I guess the SMH (not to mention the major conservative parties and myself) would be in disagreement with immigration department head Andrew Metcalfe.

Strange times we lead with tables turned and the so called "dead woman walking" striving to help us to "move forward". For anyone easily confused, I refer to Julia "not going anywhere" Gillard.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#32 User is offline   GeorgeParsons 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 452
  • Joined: 02-May 11

Posted 11 September 2011 - 08:55 AM

Most Australians want on - shore processing. Ordinary people show a lot more decency and compassion than politicians. The London riots have complex causes; Australians won't be on the streets in defiance of common sense.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#33 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 11 September 2011 - 09:44 AM

Abbott's stance of turning back boats is completely loony. Not only does it breach international law, it also encourages the refugees and smugglers to sabotage the boats, thus putting their lives at risk. If this crazy idea of his is intended to reduce the risk to refugees, it will backfire badly.

I also do not agree with the stance of picking on boat arrivals when planes bring more asylum seekers than boats do. If planeloads of asylum seekers can be accommodated on the mainland, why not boat arrivals as well? Treat them all the same, treat them humanely.

People smugglers are a problem, but there are other solutions, surely? People smugglers are often discussed as if they were running a business, and had a business model. In the world of business, the surest way to put a competing company out of business is to offer a superior product at a cheaper price. For refugees, one way of doing this is to set up refugee processing centres in or near the countries of origin, and make them easy to get to. Why spend US$15,000 on a leaky boat if they can take a much less risky journey for free? The boats would be stopped, people smugglers would be out of business, and everyone is happy.

But of course the Liberals would never consider that. You see, the real reason why the Liberals demonise boat people but not plane people is politics. Plane people are more likely to be better connected and wealthy, and are therefore more likely to vote Liberal than boat people if they become naturalised citizens.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#34 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 11 September 2011 - 12:10 PM

View PostBam, on 11 September 2011 - 09:44 AM, said:

I also do not agree with the stance of picking on boat arrivals when planes bring more asylum seekers than boats do. If planeloads of asylum seekers can be accommodated on the mainland, why not boat arrivals as well? Treat them all the same, treat them humanely.


The difference as we all know Bam is that the "wealthy" plane travellers (paying for the $1000 cattle class ticket instead of the $15000 "cruise") have the all important passport. I'll bet that little document gives the holder's assessment as a refugee a mighty kick start.

Bam said:

People smugglers are a problem, but there are other solutions, surely? People smugglers are often discussed as if they were running a business, and had a business model. In the world of business, the surest way to put a competing company out of business is to offer a superior product at a cheaper price.


Is that like the methadone program?

Bam said:

For refugees, one way of doing this is to set up refugee processing centres in or near the countries of origin, and make them easy to get to. Why spend US$15,000 on a leaky boat if they can take a much less risky journey for free? The boats would be stopped, people smugglers would be out of business, and everyone is happy.


Or the methadone program upped several notches?

Your idea is not totally over the top, and expensive though it might be, so are the currently considered alternatives. The appeal as I see it would be that such a program would effectively do the offshore processing (assessment of refugee status) prior to them landing in Australia. But what of those that don't or couldn't pass muster? Back to the people smugglers.

Speaking of smugglers, if they are saving desperate folk from persecution and worse, why are they so maligned? Why are they not being promoted as virtuous and indeed, heroic saviours, albeit with a business model and cash in hand? Throw in some QA and OHS and Gillard could even outsource the transportation of refugees.

Bam said:

But of course the Liberals would never consider that. You see, the real reason why the Liberals demonise boat people but not plane people is politics. Plane people are more likely to be better connected and wealthy, and are therefore more likely to vote Liberal than boat people if they become naturalised citizens.


Now that's just out and out cynicism. Clearly I would never dare to suggest that a left wing Rudd government or the Greens would welcome boat people with welcome arms on account of their voting predilections, so why would you suggest that all the desperate refugees flying in would be fast-tracked by the Libs because of a vote?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#35 User is offline   GeorgeParsons 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 452
  • Joined: 02-May 11

Posted 11 September 2011 - 03:19 PM

The number of people involved is small. There is no threat to Australian society. Indeed there is a great benefit to the economy. Refugees should be processed on shore and after health and security checks released into the community with temporary visas. Most, as we know, will achieve permanent status. Why do we demonise people seeking economic and social stability? Why can capital move freely around the world and not labour? Australians surely are better than most politicians who sacrifice people for the redneck vote.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#36 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 11 September 2011 - 05:05 PM

View PostGeorgeParsons, on 11 September 2011 - 03:19 PM, said:

The number of people involved is small. There is no threat to Australian society. Indeed there is a great benefit to the economy. Refugees should be processed on shore and after health and security checks released into the community with temporary visas. Most, as we know, will achieve permanent status. Why do we demonise people seeking economic and social stability? Why can capital move freely around the world and not labour? Australians surely are better than most politicians who sacrifice people for the redneck vote.


Wow! I'd previously thought you came from the quite noble humanitarian school of thought, but now you espouse a free market economy that would include completely open borders. Have I misunderstood?

Humanitarian ideals are one thing, and reasonably argued as being a popular thing amongst Australians, but to say of would be immigrants seeking economic and social stability that:

Quote

Indeed there is a great benefit to the economy


Sorrry. I just don't get it. Looking after a proportion of those who are truly needy I follow.

SettlementOutcomes of New Arrivals – Report of findings

Quote

Study for Department of Immigration and Citizenship

To inform these settlement services, DIAC commissioned this study, undertaken by the Australian Survey Research Group, to obtain a better understanding of how Humanitarian Program entrants are faring during their first five years in Australia and to help identify what factors contribute to successful settlement.

Afghanistan 9.0% employed
Afghanistan 8.3% uemployed
Household receives Centrelink benefits 93.7%


Which aspect of the economy gains a benefit? Surely not the GDP.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#37 User is offline   GeorgeParsons 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 452
  • Joined: 02-May 11

Posted 11 September 2011 - 05:23 PM

I am certainly in favour of more open borders.If capitalism is serious it should encourage mobility of labour. Economic benefits? Most of the refugees are middle class in their own countries. How else would they pay their fares to Australia? They also display initiative, entrepreneurial skill ,courage and persistence. Like the Vietnamese boat people they would be a benefit to our economy and our society.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#38 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 11 September 2011 - 06:01 PM

View PostGeorgeParsons, on 11 September 2011 - 05:23 PM, said:

I am certainly in favour of more open borders.If capitalism is serious it should encourage mobility of labour.


I don't see the link between capitalism and mobility of labour, but you may well know the topic formally. Perhaps I should just glibly say that capitalism is not serious, but just after a buck. God bless America and all that.

View PostGeorgeParsons, on 11 September 2011 - 05:23 PM, said:

Economic benefits? Most of the refugees are middle class in their own countries. How else would they pay their fares to Australia?


In fairness, the report to which I linked included stats on Centrelink benefits for refugees from other countries of origin. The range was roughly 73 to 94% of households receiving Centrelink benefits, and 9 to 56% employed. That's here in Australia, not in their own countries.

Quote

They also display initiative, entrepreneurial skill ,courage and persistence.


Maybe yes, maybe no, but I think you are merely waxing eloquently without a basis in fact.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#39 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 12 September 2011 - 08:13 AM

View Posticey, on 10 September 2011 - 05:35 PM, said:

I missed where the article gave figures on trends in worldwide refugee movements, but the included government graph seemed roughly consistent with the government graph I linked earlier. Both show clearly the relative absence of refugees/boats during the last five or so years of the Howard government.

yes.... which coincides exactly with worldwide refugee numbers in the same period. Interpretation: Howard got lucky. His policy had nothing to do with the rate of arrivals.

Besides all this -
  • refugees are piddling number of people in our intake;
  • they constitute no security threat at all;
  • they are not illegal in any sense
  • all these 'processing' options are obscenely expensive - better to put the billions into health and look after a lot more people, for example.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#40 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 12 September 2011 - 09:21 AM

View Postscotto, on 12 September 2011 - 08:13 AM, said:

yes.... which coincides exactly with worldwide refugee numbers in the same period. Interpretation: Howard got lucky. His policy had nothing to do with the rate of arrivals.


ABC"s 7.30 Report said:

Uhlmann: "In the five years before you came to government, 288 people arrived by boat. Since 2008, 11,605 have arrived. So you changed something. The boats had effectively stopped,"

Bowen: "That's a very simplistic analysis, Chris."



So if those numbers are correct, can you do better than Minister Bowen and point me to a source showing a coinciding four thousnd (4000) per cent or so increase in worldwide refugee numbers over the relevant time period? It would be a most compelling reason to accept your argument that "Howard got lucky" and that his policy counted for nought.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

Share this topic:


  • 58 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »


Fast Reply