That has also been answered - it is obvious. We would love to fix every problem in the world; but we can't. What we can do is fit more refugees into our country. It's not rocket science.Azamakumar said:
... I don't think you can claim a stupid question was rhetorical when it has already answered.
in which case you must also believe that we have the right not to let in reffos if we don't want toabsolutlaura said:
Yeah we want more kids to works labour, how come I never realised that!?!? Not to mention the workchoices legislation, aimed at making the nature of labour in this country skilled.campbellleo said:
Australia isnt the only place they are running.. and i think our government refers to it as 'intergration' not assimilation. The limits of the system? well if by limits you are referring to the limit on the amount of support we can give refugees in terms of counselling/education etc, then we have not even reached that limit, let alone surpassed it.Azamakumar said:
Yeah - the way to stop people getting killed is to kill them. True, but kind of counter-productive, don't you think? Possible we could encourage peaceful revolutions, we could educate, we can give aid, we can avoid the sort odf closemindedness that makes people result to violence (i.e. some moron saying the only solution is military action, when clearly I think we have come a bit further than that in the course of civilisation).iamsickofyear12 said:
lol ah but of course... i just dont believe that their apparent inability to 'intergrate' is a good enough reason to slam the door.Captain Gh3y said:in which case you must also believe that we have the right not to let in reffos if we don't want to
The system can't handle large numbers of people unwilling to integrate. You speak of sending them all out to work as though it's that easy and as though it's going to solve our problems and theirs. The majority of them are unskilled. They don't speak English and they are making no effort to integrate.
Sounds like a plenty good reason to temporarily stop refugee intake from Africa. We're not stopping AID. We're not stopping immigration. We're stopping African refugee intake for a period of time.
It's not a fucking ban, a quota has been filled for the 9 months. A quota which has been put in place to ensure their welfare once they do reach here. You all seem to think the problem is magically fixed once some goverment official places a stamp on paper.spiny norman said:
Azamakumar said:
WTF?
Newsflash: migration 'policy' is not a system; and if you are claiming we are incapable of processing more people, that is also pretty stupid. We have a 17bn$ budget surplus, I am sure we can handle to buy a couple of bookkeepers.
But because we say no to Africans the goverment is shit and racist and morally lacking.katie_tully said:
Actually, the why is because China would not allow any such intervention/invasion to take place - Sudan is far from being resource poor, and Chinese companies (and the Chinese Government) have invested heavily in Sudan.absolutlaura said:
But have we questioned why theyre not intergrating? They cant speak english.. theres a goodun, its hard to intergrate into a community when you dont speak the language.. theyre poorly educated, theres another.. how can they be expected to prosper in a culture that they dont understand? Not to mention the fact that the ongoing atrocities may have had some impact on their state of mind/mental health..katie_tully said:
Yeah - how would bringing in young people help to solve our ageing population? I can't think.katie_tully said:
and we cant piss off china.. tibet being another perfect example of us looking the other way because god forbid we disagree with china..Generator said:
Just because you disagree with an argument doesn't make it incompetent.
You can go ahead and do that if you want but its not going to work.campbellleo said:
