In response to K
This is going under the cut for the sheer amount of text. not wall of text crit! hah!
I think you have misunderstood me on a few things. I have clarified one, let me clarify another. I do support genuine refugees, and I am more than willing to hand my money over. I have no qualms about higher taxes - but I do want a purpose with a certain end for people. This “end” does not necessarily mean that the person stop receiving benefits from the government, just that we know that it is definitely helping someone.
What I really didn’t like is people (not just me) constantly giving money and not knowing where it is going because nothing is means tested. I don’t want to be paying for the next person’s LCD TV screen when I can’t afford one. What I want my money to be ALSO doing is to find out who is manipulating the system, and who isn’t. That those who are manipulating the system be taken away or coerced to contribute back to whom they have taken from.
Often, the “humanitarian way” is to get the process quickly over, let them in with all these benefits look after them and that’s it. This, however, just isn’t enough right down, if really it is for humanitarian reasons. Often, refugees find it hard to assimilate for whatsoever reasons, or they just choose not to assimilate. Besides that, after the initial employment for the sake of maintaining their visa status, some may then don’t pick up jobs or seek to improve themselves. At the end of the day, it just means that they are back in square one, except in a safer and richer country who can afford to let them stay the way they are when both sides should help them seek a truly better life of their own doing. Aid is more than letting them lead a comfortable life. Aid should be, in a humanitarian way, helping people get on their own two feet so they could go anywhere in the world and support themselves and contribute to the community they live in - useful to themselves, useful to others.
Of course, I understand what I want is logistically not quite achievable because of the sheer amount of expense it can get up to from trying to means test a person, right from entry to resettlement. As it is, the government is giving them so much money for various things (housing, daily sustenance, recruitment, what gives), so more money being thrown in the same direction might also not alleviate the situation.
And then, we go back to being “humanitarian”. Australia, like countries all over the world, has her fair share of the homeless, the destitute and many who have fallen through cracks in the safety net that is our welfare system. What boggles me is that it is far easier to reach out and get help as a refugee than it is for a born-bred Aussie who terribly needs help. Yes, help is often just an office away, etc etc etc... There are also enough people who don’t fulfil certain requirements to be able to access these “aids”. At the end of the day, why is Australia helping others when her own is crying for help?
The Australian culture that I truly admire is quite hard to describe. In a way, you are right, people progress, the world changes - but some things would never change. Fair go for all, mateship, the proud Aussies being proud Aussies... I worry that one day, Australia might be so overpopulated by opportunists that should things come to a crunch, e.g war, Australia would be left with no one to defend her because everyone would be on their first boat out seeking asylum elsewhere.
Of course, when I mentioned the Australian culture, I wasn’t thinking of the white Australian policy. That didn’t cross my mind at all till you mentioned it. But since we’ve clarified the racism issue, let’s move on.
By “we”, I define it as people who want to migrate to Australia through the mainstream channels of being skilled, being spouses, being children of Australians and so on. In March 2009 (and possibly more so recently), skilled migration intake quota was cut down by 14%. This averages out to about 20,000 slots that are being cut. Sure, denial or acceptance is all in the comfort of our homes, rooms, places that we know - which is by far more comfortable than what the media is presenting the detention centres to be.
However, it saddens me that it seems and feels like more and more refugees are being granted temporary statuses and then PR, and then Citizenship (PR to Citizenship is done on the mainland) while others with something to offer the country immediately are denied that possibility. This is not a victim mentality, rather a naive thought that if there could be x amount of incoming refugees, then surely there can be enough space for the same amount of migrants coming through with skills and (perhaps) resources to boot instead of cutting the intake percentage. And that is what I meant by being marginalised.
When I suggested that if refugees can just get in based on “I need help away from my country”, then I should just get a raft and come back and make it easier for myself, I meant it not in a way that made light of the trials and tribulations that they go through. Rather, instead of forking out thousands of dollars with still a 50-50 chance of being denied, and then forking out more thousands that I don’t have... you get the drift. In countries like America, illegal migration eventually equates legal migration. When I look at it in that way, the money, the rejection, and then see a refugee get her citizenship, yes, there are days when I think sitting in a detention centre with nothing else to look forward to in the short term does seem easier than worrying where I can find the next lot of $thousands.
When I suggested those things that Australia should do to help herself, it is also with the mind that they are not actively participating in certain conventions and activities. One of the reasons why I thought Australia should turn boats away is (and I knew I should have mentioned this, my apologies) if they are already having enough trouble accommodating the current pending number of refugees and, especially, if they are already having trouble aiding their own population. As I have mentioned, land and money can be scarce, particularly if there are already other areas that the government is concentrating on spending on. This should be a last resort solution, and it is really only a temporary solution if you think about it. If people want to come, there is no way you can really stop them.
And as I have mentioned, sending boats back doesn’t meant dumping them on to Indonesia or sending them back home when home isn’t really a viable choice. Like I’ve said, there are definitely a number of countries between Australia and their homeland they can possibly get asylum at.
This also drew me to another “solution” that I thought of and forgot to write about. Perhaps Australia can negotiate terms with neighbouring countries and discuss a possible “resettlement” of refugees in their countries. For countries needing the extra population and “skills” (my thoughts were, Australia could help train them before flying them off to resettle them elsewhere), this would be a nice feasible idea. Just theoretically anyways.
Rebuilding the country in what I wrote: to, if possible, help rebuild the country refugees came from. AKA, not Australia, but, e.g Sudan. In my theoretical “solutions”, my idea is that if and once the referring country has stabilised, refugees (who would technically be skilled migrants by this stage) should be helped repatriated back home, therefore helping to rebuild the nation they came from.
Failed States: This is a term, normally to describe countries that have failed economically, socially and politically. This term can be further explored here and here. When used in my opinions before, it was to describe the home countries of the refugees, e.g Somalia (Therefore, I wasn’t describing Australia for deciding to take in refugees).
As for assimilating migrants, refugees or otherwise, it can actually be a difficult thing to do because of various factors. Cultural, religious, opinions - just what people are used to can vary from person to person, faction to faction, culture to culture. While I personally didn’t feel it, there are people I know who experienced a massive culture shock and is unable to assimilate because certain things just completely baffles them. I can only thank Singaporean’s “melting pot” culture for my ability to just fit in here.
Besides just all those differences being a barrier to assimilation, one has to admit that language barriers is more than just being able to speak and describe what one feels in English. What I think I am hearing sometimes, is completely different from what the speaker actually meant. Similarly, when I spoke in sarcasm sometimes, it completely rolled off the other party who took it seriously (other party being someone from another country). Assimilation, though, is a topic that will probably churn through yet another 3 pages worth of writing, though I am not here to change your mind or coerce you to believe me. I’ll just settle to agree to disagree :)
Above and beyond all, I am not trying to fear-monger or to sensationalise the topic of asylum seekers. I do understand that the reality of a dangerous, unstable and poverty-ridden life as a very real situation. What I really want to open up is that there should be a balance to it. That, if there is to be an admittance of a refugee, then they should go the length and breadth to make sure that the country is not “used”. That, if there is to be money spent on helping them to find their own two feet, then they should at least attempt to find their own two feet and then contribute back to the society that helped them... so that the society can help more of others like them. That, if we process the refugee visas faster, we are not accidentally letting criminals and other dangerous characters into the country that are likely to hurt the country itself.
Oh wow geez, boy am I tired.
I think you have misunderstood me on a few things. I have clarified one, let me clarify another. I do support genuine refugees, and I am more than willing to hand my money over. I have no qualms about higher taxes - but I do want a purpose with a certain end for people. This “end” does not necessarily mean that the person stop receiving benefits from the government, just that we know that it is definitely helping someone.
What I really didn’t like is people (not just me) constantly giving money and not knowing where it is going because nothing is means tested. I don’t want to be paying for the next person’s LCD TV screen when I can’t afford one. What I want my money to be ALSO doing is to find out who is manipulating the system, and who isn’t. That those who are manipulating the system be taken away or coerced to contribute back to whom they have taken from.
Often, the “humanitarian way” is to get the process quickly over, let them in with all these benefits look after them and that’s it. This, however, just isn’t enough right down, if really it is for humanitarian reasons. Often, refugees find it hard to assimilate for whatsoever reasons, or they just choose not to assimilate. Besides that, after the initial employment for the sake of maintaining their visa status, some may then don’t pick up jobs or seek to improve themselves. At the end of the day, it just means that they are back in square one, except in a safer and richer country who can afford to let them stay the way they are when both sides should help them seek a truly better life of their own doing. Aid is more than letting them lead a comfortable life. Aid should be, in a humanitarian way, helping people get on their own two feet so they could go anywhere in the world and support themselves and contribute to the community they live in - useful to themselves, useful to others.
Of course, I understand what I want is logistically not quite achievable because of the sheer amount of expense it can get up to from trying to means test a person, right from entry to resettlement. As it is, the government is giving them so much money for various things (housing, daily sustenance, recruitment, what gives), so more money being thrown in the same direction might also not alleviate the situation.
And then, we go back to being “humanitarian”. Australia, like countries all over the world, has her fair share of the homeless, the destitute and many who have fallen through cracks in the safety net that is our welfare system. What boggles me is that it is far easier to reach out and get help as a refugee than it is for a born-bred Aussie who terribly needs help. Yes, help is often just an office away, etc etc etc... There are also enough people who don’t fulfil certain requirements to be able to access these “aids”. At the end of the day, why is Australia helping others when her own is crying for help?
The Australian culture that I truly admire is quite hard to describe. In a way, you are right, people progress, the world changes - but some things would never change. Fair go for all, mateship, the proud Aussies being proud Aussies... I worry that one day, Australia might be so overpopulated by opportunists that should things come to a crunch, e.g war, Australia would be left with no one to defend her because everyone would be on their first boat out seeking asylum elsewhere.
Of course, when I mentioned the Australian culture, I wasn’t thinking of the white Australian policy. That didn’t cross my mind at all till you mentioned it. But since we’ve clarified the racism issue, let’s move on.
By “we”, I define it as people who want to migrate to Australia through the mainstream channels of being skilled, being spouses, being children of Australians and so on. In March 2009 (and possibly more so recently), skilled migration intake quota was cut down by 14%. This averages out to about 20,000 slots that are being cut. Sure, denial or acceptance is all in the comfort of our homes, rooms, places that we know - which is by far more comfortable than what the media is presenting the detention centres to be.
However, it saddens me that it seems and feels like more and more refugees are being granted temporary statuses and then PR, and then Citizenship (PR to Citizenship is done on the mainland) while others with something to offer the country immediately are denied that possibility. This is not a victim mentality, rather a naive thought that if there could be x amount of incoming refugees, then surely there can be enough space for the same amount of migrants coming through with skills and (perhaps) resources to boot instead of cutting the intake percentage. And that is what I meant by being marginalised.
When I suggested that if refugees can just get in based on “I need help away from my country”, then I should just get a raft and come back and make it easier for myself, I meant it not in a way that made light of the trials and tribulations that they go through. Rather, instead of forking out thousands of dollars with still a 50-50 chance of being denied, and then forking out more thousands that I don’t have... you get the drift. In countries like America, illegal migration eventually equates legal migration. When I look at it in that way, the money, the rejection, and then see a refugee get her citizenship, yes, there are days when I think sitting in a detention centre with nothing else to look forward to in the short term does seem easier than worrying where I can find the next lot of $thousands.
When I suggested those things that Australia should do to help herself, it is also with the mind that they are not actively participating in certain conventions and activities. One of the reasons why I thought Australia should turn boats away is (and I knew I should have mentioned this, my apologies) if they are already having enough trouble accommodating the current pending number of refugees and, especially, if they are already having trouble aiding their own population. As I have mentioned, land and money can be scarce, particularly if there are already other areas that the government is concentrating on spending on. This should be a last resort solution, and it is really only a temporary solution if you think about it. If people want to come, there is no way you can really stop them.
And as I have mentioned, sending boats back doesn’t meant dumping them on to Indonesia or sending them back home when home isn’t really a viable choice. Like I’ve said, there are definitely a number of countries between Australia and their homeland they can possibly get asylum at.
This also drew me to another “solution” that I thought of and forgot to write about. Perhaps Australia can negotiate terms with neighbouring countries and discuss a possible “resettlement” of refugees in their countries. For countries needing the extra population and “skills” (my thoughts were, Australia could help train them before flying them off to resettle them elsewhere), this would be a nice feasible idea. Just theoretically anyways.
Rebuilding the country in what I wrote: to, if possible, help rebuild the country refugees came from. AKA, not Australia, but, e.g Sudan. In my theoretical “solutions”, my idea is that if and once the referring country has stabilised, refugees (who would technically be skilled migrants by this stage) should be helped repatriated back home, therefore helping to rebuild the nation they came from.
Failed States: This is a term, normally to describe countries that have failed economically, socially and politically. This term can be further explored here and here. When used in my opinions before, it was to describe the home countries of the refugees, e.g Somalia (Therefore, I wasn’t describing Australia for deciding to take in refugees).
As for assimilating migrants, refugees or otherwise, it can actually be a difficult thing to do because of various factors. Cultural, religious, opinions - just what people are used to can vary from person to person, faction to faction, culture to culture. While I personally didn’t feel it, there are people I know who experienced a massive culture shock and is unable to assimilate because certain things just completely baffles them. I can only thank Singaporean’s “melting pot” culture for my ability to just fit in here.
Besides just all those differences being a barrier to assimilation, one has to admit that language barriers is more than just being able to speak and describe what one feels in English. What I think I am hearing sometimes, is completely different from what the speaker actually meant. Similarly, when I spoke in sarcasm sometimes, it completely rolled off the other party who took it seriously (other party being someone from another country). Assimilation, though, is a topic that will probably churn through yet another 3 pages worth of writing, though I am not here to change your mind or coerce you to believe me. I’ll just settle to agree to disagree :)
Above and beyond all, I am not trying to fear-monger or to sensationalise the topic of asylum seekers. I do understand that the reality of a dangerous, unstable and poverty-ridden life as a very real situation. What I really want to open up is that there should be a balance to it. That, if there is to be an admittance of a refugee, then they should go the length and breadth to make sure that the country is not “used”. That, if there is to be money spent on helping them to find their own two feet, then they should at least attempt to find their own two feet and then contribute back to the society that helped them... so that the society can help more of others like them. That, if we process the refugee visas faster, we are not accidentally letting criminals and other dangerous characters into the country that are likely to hurt the country itself.
Oh wow geez, boy am I tired.