What do we think of the current Federal Government

Welcome to Sydney!

Even the rents at Mount Druitt are close to $400 a week, which is why I don’t understand why working class people even bother living in Sydney. http://www.realestate.com.au/neighbourhoods/mount%20druitt-2770-nsw

That’s probably one of the cheapest locations in Sydney. Working at the docks she’d than have to commute 50km each way and pay for tolls etc., which would easily amount to another $100 a week along with the opportunity cost of time. If she decided to live closer to work it would easily cost $600 a week for a place.

She would’ve been a lot better just sticking with her housing commission house instead of moving into the private market.

 

Why do you say that? 'Resettle' in this context means selecting refugees from camps rather than waiting for them to make their way to the boarder.

Most countries dont have the option of towing boats away in the middle of the night. asylum seekers arrive, claims are determined and refugee status is granted or not.

Until we started towing boats back, about 90-95% of boat arrivals were found to be genuine refugees. The gov knows they are towing mostly genuine refugees.

 

''Resettlement is the transfer of refugees from an asylum country to another State that has agreed to admit them and ultimately grant them permanent settlement.''

Jordan for example is not offering resettlement and likely never will. Having refugees flood over your borders and actually resettling them are two very different things.

The definition of genuine here is questionable. Personally, fleeing over the borders of multiple countries and then paying 10KUS to arrive in Australia (about the furthest possible safe nation away does not define you as genuine imo)

 

No the definiotion of who is and isnt a refugee isnt questionable. There is no room for interpretation or opinion here, as signatories to the UN refugee convention it is all there in black and white.

Whats next? Are we going to debate if the earth is round?

 

Careful he'll ignore you and avoid answering questions soon.
Because that's what adults do.

 

You're not making any sense. The status of a person being a refugee or not is something that is determined by governments worldwide. That has no relevance to the actual words definition (which no one has questioned).

 

The definition of 'resettlement' you have quoted is the same i used. Im not sure what you are getting at.

Jordan has accepted thousands and thousands of refugess despite being a developing country and not a signatory to the human rights convention. refugees there have land, homes and go to school. My understanding is that the Palestinians are hoping to go home one day. Im sure a lot of the syrians and Iraqis might too when its safe.

Very few countries 'resettle' refugees in the way canada and Australia do. It doesnt mean they dont allow thousands and thousands of refugees to settle. Granting refugee status is accepting refugees. Australia and canada opted for the resettlement model because their geography meant that in the past few refugees made it to their border so it was a way to accept a share. Other countries dont bother flying so many refugees around, they just process them when they show up.

 

I'm using the unhcr definition of resettlement: http://www.unhcr.org/pages/4a16b1676.html

 

Yep, so the stats quoted by turk are misleading as they only refer to a specific type of refugee.

As far as i am aware, australia only really resettles sudanese refugees lately. Boat arrivals dont count as 'resettled'. So vietnamese refugees were accepted but not 'resettled'. Therefore its not a useful category to use when making international comparisons.

 

Umm yeah nah bro. If someone is found to qualify as a refugee they are by definitoon a "genuine" refugee. You might not like that they could have stopped at an earlier country, quite frankly your opinion is entirely irrelevant and so is mine. There is no room for interpretation in a black and white issue like who is and isnt found to be a refugee

 

I'm not naming anyone.

I think I'll chomp on a raw onion.

 

TXH - you can be a genuine refugee by anyones definition but not a 'resettled' refugee. 'Resettled' is not the definition of refugee. All resettled refugees are refugees but not all refugees are resettled.

 

According to the government bureaucrat who decided that which is based upon their interpretation of the available evidence. The words definition is not relevant to the point I am making. Let me make it even clearer; A genuine refugee is decided by a third party who may or may not be accurate in their decision.

 

Lets make it even clearer than that, this decision is made by someone with a lot more knowlege than you or i and with more relevant info relating to the refugee in question.

Unless you have specific proof of each case that has been approved quite frankly youre talking nonsense

 

a) make sure it's fresh b) don't peel it first c) don't shed a tear when you do it!

 

Appeal to authority.

 

Maybe that's why the go slow has been activated.

But as I said; I am happy for refugees to come here, Geoff.

I just don't want to see them come by boat because we know how that ends up for many - drowned, and/or held in centres indefinitely until they are processed and all the nu-job terrorists and honor killing idiots are weeded out....good luck with that one.

I'd rather see them allowed in by plane, and processed in on-shore facilities.

But who will fund it?

 

I agree with this sentiment. I also don't want our future Australian citizens drowning at sea or locked up indefinitely. For some reason, this seems to escape 'the left'.

And quickly too please. Locking up our future citizens is expensive and unproductive.

Well, obviously there has to be a limit on the number we accept each year. What that limit is, I have no idea. However, closing the offshore processing centres again would free up $1.2 billion dollars a year, if this article is to be believed.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...sing-centres-in-one-year-20150205-13708n.html

 

Nah, but see, PG; if you do that and think economically about this, the Left, the handwringers, and general Civ Libs will call you heartless and be ashamed.

It'd be an endless drama; protests, chaining ones' self to the fences, allegations of all sorts of crimes and misdemenanors and inhumane activities, and on and on.

No; you have to have an unlimited number policy, or none.

Maybe the Pollies can donate their perks entitlements to fund it all; should cover it.

 

I know, but I'm not ashamed. Not one bit.

Yeah well, it is another $100 million per year. It would cover a lot of resettlement.