Should we reduce the refugee intake? (1 Viewer)

[Crobat]

I would never force other's to pay for my misfortune, I would seek help from friends and family in my time of need but never force it upon them, I understand not all can do that but that isn't the point.

If a right to something means another person will have to pay for it, then it is no longer a right, it's stealing. Australia should renege on this idea that we have to take people in JUST CAUSE.

My question to you is what would happen if a million or 10 million Asylum seekers were to show up tomorrow? Would you force the tax paying citizens of this country, who already get a percentage of their income stolen from them every year to pay the cost? Do you agree with legalised stealing? Don’t you think people should be able to reserve the right to not have to fund other people's lives at any point in time?

At the moment it is a semi-stable expenditure in our budget, however if the amount of refuges coming annually were to increase ten fold, I doubt the government could fund the sort of care that they receive for too much longer.

For me this debate boils down to money. Where it’s coming from and where it is being spent. If one cent is being spent on Asylum seekers it is morally wrong. As I’ve already stated I don’t care if people come here or if they are prevented from coming here, I’m fine either way.

I just don’t like stealing.

I understand where you are coming from, but throwing out impossible hypotheticals to come to a decision that involves literally 10000x less people is meaningless. By that logic I should conclude that all welfare systems are bad and that anything where an influx of people would have an affect should have further entry into it illegalised.

And do you consider paying tax stealing? It's a very immature perspective of what tax is and does for the economy.

You want to see roads built and fixed, but you don't want to pay the Government funds that would allow that to happen? You want to see less homeless people on the streets, but you don't want to pay the Government funds that would assist them in restarting their lives? You want to see more technological advancements in the country, but again, you don't want to provide the Government the funds to help that? This applies for so many other things such as the Defence Force, the education system, and even medical centres. The idea of tax is to provide the Government with a budget that could be used to increase the quality of life in the country. It's not simply evil fat cats stealing your money so they can up their own pay and buy more fast cars and big houses.

And while I agree with the weight of asylum seekers being quite material to the budget, I don't believe they are doing all they can to assure that asylum seekers can settle properly in the country and start contributing to society. If asylum seekers have an income cap of $500/wk, then what incentive is that for them to work hard and earn their living when they can get similar amounts of money for doing nothing? If I was told I can get a HD for nothing, or a HD for doing work, I'd take the HD for doing nothing even though I should be doing the work for the love of learning, etc. If the Government removed this cap and provided refugees with more assistance that would help them get jobs and move forward with their lives, then obviously the monetary burden that they are would become lessoned.

And do not bring morals into this, because if you are denying human beings the right to live and to be supported when they have lost everything without a single say, then that is undeniably and universally the most immoral action you can take. It almost sounds like you are against the concept of welfare entirely. Do you realise that if welfare was not to exist, then the poverty line in the country would rise dramatically? With the amount of people that welfare has helped out, the economy has prospered far more than it has faced deficit. If money is so important to you, then you need to realise where the money comes from, and what would happen if it would suddenly disappear.

Tax is not technically stealing, and neither is welfare. But if the way you view is as simple as "I earned this money, and someone is taking it away from me to help someone else", obviously no one will be able to change that.

 

[AB940]

I would never force other's to pay for my misfortune, I would seek help from friends and family in my time of need but never force it upon them, I understand not all can do that but that isn't the point.

If a right to something means another person will have to pay for it, then it is no longer a right, it's stealing. Australia should renege on this idea that we have to take people in JUST CAUSE.

My question to you is what would happen if a million or 10 million Asylum seekers were to show up tomorrow? Would you force the tax paying citizens of this country, who already get a percentage of their income stolen from them every year to pay the cost? Do you agree with legalised stealing? Don’t you think people should be able to reserve the right to not have to fund other people's lives at any point in time?

At the moment it is a semi-stable expenditure in our budget, however if the amount of refuges coming annually were to increase ten fold, I doubt the government could fund the sort of care that they receive for too much longer.

For me this debate boils down to money. Where it’s coming from and where it is being spent. If one cent is being spent on Asylum seekers it is morally wrong. As I’ve already stated I don’t care if people come here or if they are prevented from coming here, I’m fine either way.

I just don’t like stealing.

I don't quite understand this logic. Your right to an education was payed for with money that - yes - came from taxpayers, whether you went to a public or a private school. Systems like medicare and subsidised tertiary education are all made possible with government money. You might not like taxes but we have them for a reason.

 

[isildurrrr1]

I don't quite understand this logic. Your right to an education was payed for with money that - yes - came from taxpayers, whether you went to a public or a private school. Systems like medicare and subsidised tertiary education are all made possible with government money. You might not like taxes but we have them for a reason.

somebody read too much ayn rand.

Scuba steve, the asylum issue IS NOT an illegal immigration issue, that's why refugees get HUMANITARIAN visas/permanent residencies. Of course the government has to support them, what do you want australia to become? Some district 9 shithole? I also highly doubt 10 million refugees will just flood into Australia... stop using logical fallacies pl0x its getting annoying. Most refugees actually are in poor countries bordering conflict zones since thats where all the refugees head to after a conflict.

edit: since youre all about money scuba steve, do you think its wise to spend more money KEEPING people out and building offshore processing in PNG and East Timor, or is it ok in your mind if its cheaper to just let them in and support them?

 

[MetalTheory]

since youre all about money scuba steve, do you think its wise to spend more money KEEPING people out and building offshore processing in PNG and East Timor, or is it ok in your mind if its cheaper to just let them in and support them?

Not to mention the transportation costs of shipping planes full of asylum seekers to and from the offshore processing centres. Fuel costs a lot these days, you know.

I always notice that libertarians have this strange morality complex, that everything the government does is immoral on the grounds that it's paid for by taxation which is apparently theft. And then there's the praising of private property as the most basic of human rights. I've heard oddly phrased statements such as "If you rape someone, you steal their virginity" in regards to theft and private property. It's a very peculiar thing, but it seems these types do exist.

 

[Garygaz]

\

\since youre all about money scuba steve, do you think its wise to spend more money KEEPING people out and building offshore processing in PNG and East Timor, or is it ok in your mind if its cheaper to just let them in and support them?

or the 3rd option, continue offshore processing, number of refugees stem as hardline policy takes affect, continue to generously give aid to countries that need it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governments_by_development_aid

relatively, we are one of the most generous countries in the world with foreign aid.

 

[isildurrrr1]

or the 3rd option, continue offshore processing, number of refugees stem as hardline policy takes affect, continue to generously give aid to countries that need it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governments_by_development_aid

relatively, we are one of the most generous countries in the world with foreign aid.

you realize iraqi and afghani refugees coming over is pretty much a direct result of ISAF and the "coalition of the willing" military action over there right?

 

[Emily Howard]

Q: Should we reduce the refugee intake?

A: With fire and ice

 

[nerdasdasd]

edit: since youre all about money scuba steve, do you think its wise to spend more money KEEPING people out and building offshore processing in PNG and East Timor, or is it ok in your mind if its cheaper to just let them in and support them?

Great idea!






















Not.

Then more and more will keep coming because they know they will have a definite new home in a first world country. In the interviews, they even say they don't want to go to the Philippines, but want to go to AUSTRALIA.,,..

 

[Emily Howard]

I always find it amusing that Islamists and their apologists are upset by the West being awared to the horrors of Islamic theocracy.

me too brother

 

[isildurrrr1]

Great idea!

Then more and more will keep coming because they know they will have a definite new home in a first world country. In the interviews, they even say they don't want to go to the Philippines, but want to go to AUSTRALIA.,,..

Gee I wonder why they don't want to go to the Philippines. theres no major secession violence or gang violence in that country right? Not like Abu Sayeff is operating out of there.

Maybe we should stop fucking up people's livelihoods so they won't have a reason to flee to our country.

I bet you're one of those assholes who'd fuck a dude in the ass and not even have the common courtesy to give him a reach around.

 

[nerdasdasd]

Gee I wonder why they don't want to go to the Philippines. theres no major secession violence or gang violence in that country right? Not like Abu Sayeff is operating out of there.

Maybe we should stop fucking up people's livelihoods so they won't have a reason to flee to our country.

I bet you're one of those assholes who'd fuck a dude in the ass and not even have the common courtesy to give him a reach around.

Lol.

If there were no fucking wars... And 1sf world countries stop funding wars and invading ... AKA America..... Then there wouldn't be refugees???

HUH!

 

[Garygaz]

you realize iraqi and afghani refugees coming over is pretty much a direct result of ISAF and the "coalition of the willing" military action over there right?

actually the vast majority coming now are iranians, but regardless, if one of our governments makes a decision to support an ally in a war, we have no obligation to then take refugees from the country we are occupying. i can see this swinging down to a 'legitimacy of war' argument, but that is pointless and for another thread. also never mind that the majority of our troops are on community building and peace keeping operations.

 

[Garygaz]

Lol.

If there were no fucking wars... And 1sf world countries stop funding wars and invading ... AKA America..... Then there wouldn't be refugees???

HUH!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1hsDn2kNriI

big bad america the cause of all the worlds problems warblgarbl omgosh imagine if no war

imagine if peace

no refugee

all happiness

human beings so happy

kumbaya humans

kumbaya

 

[isildurrrr1]

Lol.

If there were no fucking wars... And 1sf world countries stop funding wars and invading ... AKA America..... Then there wouldn't be refugees???

HUH!

No what I'm saying is that if were going to fuck a place up, we might as well lend a helping hand allowing people to migrate to our country after the war, you know kinda what we did for the south vietnamese.

 

[nerdasdasd]

No what I'm saying is that if were going to fuck a place up, we might as well lend a helping hand allowing people to migrate to our country after the war, you know kinda what we did for the south vietnamese.

True that..

 

[someth1ng]

I don't think we need to reduce it but I do think that we need to have a look at everyone on a case-by-case basis. For example, the ones like these should be rejected.

The ones that are in detention and can show that they're at least somewhat decent should be given a chance. I mean, my parents were once refugees and they said that even though they were in detention centres, they tried their best to follow orders of Australian officials.

 

[Garygaz]

and what of the fact that there are waiting lists for legitimate refugees who keep getting their places stolen by those choosing to come by boat (who actually have enough cash to afford a ticket, suggesting they aren't as bad off as some of the poorer refugees). we have a maximum intake and when that gets used up before we can look at those who have applied overseas, then how is that fair?

 

[isildurrrr1]

and what of the fact that there are waiting lists for legitimate refugees who keep getting their places stolen by those choosing to come by boat (who actually have enough cash to afford a ticket, suggesting they aren't as bad off as some of the poorer refugees). we have a maximum intake and when that gets used up before we can look at those who have applied overseas, then how is that fair?

thats a myth. there is no refugee queue

http://www.sbs.com.au/goback/about/factsheets/10/are-refugees-who-arrive-by-boat-queue-jumpers

 

[Garygaz]

I'm pretty sure if you have access to thousands in cash and can get from Iran to Thailand, you can get access to the UN resettlement system. they are queue skipping those who would otherwise be allocated to us from the UN. that's a fact and a biased opinion piece from an even more opinionated sbs show can't change that.

 

[Tasteless]

yeah

they talk about how it cost them everything they had to get here

people who need refugee status the most live in shanty shacks and dont have a hope of ever seeing the kind of cash people smugglers demand