BF2S Forums 700 migrants drown going to Europe

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

It seems the jury is still out.
http://www.mdainc.org.au/sites/default/ … -Final.pdf
Although various studies have attempted to prove that they do make a net contribution, eventually, its not yet been achieved.

Other migrants OTOH make a significant contribution.
https://www.immi.gov.au/media/publicati … -apr11.pdf

It will be interesting to see what happens in Europe.  Would Australia take in 200,000 migrants a year, as Germany does?

Why do people, who through no action of their own except random chance, born in a certain geographical region deserve to be shielded from competition? People who emigrate generally are the people with the balls and courage to uproot themselves and move to a different country. Those are the types of people who bust their ass to make a better life. The locals they displace (if any) are generally the bottom of the barrel ne'erdowells who are a net minus to society anyway.

The real reason for your concern is racism.

Most hostility to immigration is out of racism. But the the racist have a small point.

A nation isn't just a flag, some land, and GDP numbers. It's a community of individuals. And no nation has a responsibility to anyone but their members. So yeah, the American loser stoner housemaid is more important to me than a Mexican who swam across the Rio Grande.

And before you tell me some story about the grateful hardworking Pakistani immigrants you buy coffee from every morning, trust me their children resent white people as much as the blacks. They just don't say it to your face or burn down the local CVS because of it. So if you want to destroy your own kid's privilege, please go right ahead.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

Jay wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

It seems the jury is still out.
http://www.mdainc.org.au/sites/default/ … -Final.pdf
Although various studies have attempted to prove that they do make a net contribution, eventually, its not yet been achieved.

Other migrants OTOH make a significant contribution.
https://www.immi.gov.au/media/publicati … -apr11.pdf

It will be interesting to see what happens in Europe.  Would Australia take in 200,000 migrants a year, as Germany does?

Why do people, who through no action of their own except random chance, born in a certain geographical region deserve to be shielded from competition? People who emigrate generally are the people with the balls and courage to uproot themselves and move to a different country. Those are the types of people who bust their ass to make a better life. The locals they displace (if any) are generally the bottom of the barrel ne'erdowells who are a net minus to society anyway.

The real reason for your concern is racism.

Most hostility to immigration is out of racism. But the the racist have a small point.

A nation isn't just a flag, some land, and GDP numbers. It's a community of individuals. And no nation has a responsibility to anyone but their members. So yeah, the American loser stoner housemaid is more important to me than a Mexican who swam across the Rio Grande.

And before you tell me some story about the grateful hardworking Pakistani immigrants you buy coffee from every morning, trust me their children resent white people as much as the blacks. They just don't say it to your face or burn down the local CVS because of it. So if you want to destroy your own kid's privilege, please go right ahead.

My kids privilege is that he's being raised by parents who are hard working professionals who care deeply about education and giving him the best life they can. If he can't take advantage of that massive head start then he doesn't deserve shit.

Jaekus wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

It seems the jury is still out.
http://www.mdainc.org.au/sites/default/ … -Final.pdf
Although various studies have attempted to prove that they do make a net contribution, eventually, its not yet been achieved.

Other migrants OTOH make a significant contribution.
https://www.immi.gov.au/media/publicati … -apr11.pdf

It will be interesting to see what happens in Europe.  Would Australia take in 200,000 migrants a year, as Germany does?

"Detaining a single asylum seeker on Manus or Nauru costs $400,000 per year. Detention in Australia costs $239,000 per year. By contrast, allowing asylum seekers to live in the community while their claims are processed costs just $12,000 per year, one twentieth of the cost of the offshore camps, and even less if they are allowed the right to work."
http://www.refugeeaction.org.au/?page_id=3447

Would you rather spend $400,000 to put someone in detention offshore, or $12,000 to have them in the community?

You use "net contribution", when what we are really looking at firstly is gross cost before contribution is even a possibility.

I love it when people complain that 'refos don't get jobs.' lol no shit if you lock them in a detention centre and can't speak english. The ones we did give english education and workforce skills do tend going to work and become net economic contributors.

I find it funny how people are bitching about 'queue jumpers' (no such thing) and how there's so many fakers (only about 5% are).

The whole affair has more to do with the bogan vote rather than actual policies or economics. Government doesn't mind spending 400k per refugee just to fuck their lives yet they're willing to cut university and medicare funding. top kek.

Jay wrote:

My grandparents were all immigrants so I would be completely disrespecting them if I was one of those assholes who tried to close the gates.

In all likelihood they would not be able to migrate to America now, the gates have already been closed, you don't need to be an asshole, its already been done for you to keep your taxes low, something you regularly complain about.

Jaekus wrote:

"Detaining a single asylum seeker on Manus or Nauru costs $400,000 per year. Detention in Australia costs $239,000 per year. By contrast, allowing asylum seekers to live in the community while their claims are processed costs just $12,000 per year, one twentieth of the cost of the offshore camps, and even less if they are allowed the right to work."

Well it was $30,000 a year last time, $12,000 wouldn't cover dole, let alone housing or healthcare.

Lets say its $12,000. If 'asylum seekers' were allowed in right away, given housing etc then there's be a flood.

Which would I prefer, 1 asylum seeker detained - and far fewer dying at sea., or 20-30 living in the community for the same money?
Out of those 20-30, a proportion will have no intention of working, a proportion will be intent on changing their new country into the shithole they've just left, a proportion will have AIDS or TB, a proportion will be straightforward criminals.

Cybargs wrote:

I find it funny how people are bitching about 'queue jumpers' (no such thing) and how there's so many fakers (only about 5% are).

No and no. There is an international refugee system - illegal migrants are jumping the queue, the judicial system, the same one which says selling machine-guns to criminals is not worth a slap on the wrist, is the only part of the system which says only 5% are fakes.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-08/m … ce/6455198
Pretty well everyone else is agreed that the system is being thoroughly abused by fakes and criminals.

top kek when human rights commission of aus (which is established by executive arm of gov) releases a report, people just go 'oh look at those lefty liberals.' even topper kek when the president of said commissioner was a corporate lawyer who for her entire career who didn't care about human rights.

Dilbert_X wrote:

If they've passed through multiple safe countries and not claimed asylum there then by definition they aren't genuine refugees in the proper sense.

This well-known right winger agrees
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ … 2p2xo.html

Senator Carr said immigrants who were not part of any ethnic or religious minority could not argue they were being persecuted in their home country.

"There have been boats where 100 per cent of them have been people who are fleeing countries where they're the majority ethnic and religious group," he said.

"I think it's unarguable that if someone is leaving a country and they are part of the majority religious and ethnic group, then they're not being persecuted in the way that the Refugee Convention describes."

I think the refugee convention is being thoroughly misinterpreted by the courts and the human rights commission.

I don't think indonesia is very asylum friendly.

Yeah because there's no tensions between sunni and shia muslims at all.

edit: just because you're the same religion doesn't mean you are all going to get along and disregard any ethnic tensions.

Last edited by Cybargs (2015-05-13 01:47:49)

Dilbert_X wrote:

If they've passed through multiple safe countries and not claimed asylum there then by definition they aren't genuine refugees in the proper sense.

This well-known right winger agrees
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ … 2p2xo.html

Senator Carr said immigrants who were not part of any ethnic or religious minority could not argue they were being persecuted in their home country.

"There have been boats where 100 per cent of them have been people who are fleeing countries where they're the majority ethnic and religious group," he said.

"I think it's unarguable that if someone is leaving a country and they are part of the majority religious and ethnic group, then they're not being persecuted in the way that the Refugee Convention describes."

I think the refugee convention is being thoroughly misinterpreted by the courts and the human rights commission.

How can you, an immigrant, be anti-immigration?

Cybargs wrote:

Dilbert_X wrote:

If they've passed through multiple safe countries and not claimed asylum there then by definition they aren't genuine refugees in the proper sense.

This well-known right winger agrees
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/ … 2p2xo.html

Senator Carr said immigrants who were not part of any ethnic or religious minority could not argue they were being persecuted in their home country.

"There have been boats where 100 per cent of them have been people who are fleeing countries where they're the majority ethnic and religious group," he said.

"I think it's unarguable that if someone is leaving a country and they are part of the majority religious and ethnic group, then they're not being persecuted in the way that the Refugee Convention describes."

I think the refugee convention is being thoroughly misinterpreted by the courts and the human rights commission.

I don't think indonesia is very asylum friendly.

Yeah because there's no tensions between sunni and shia muslims at all.

edit: just because you're the same religion doesn't mean you are all going to get along and disregard any ethnic tensions.

So since they can't get over their ethnic issues despite being the same religion, their solution is to go to a country where the people aren't the same race AND religion as them?

this is glorious.

Dilbert_X wrote:

Jay wrote:

How can you, an immigrant, be anti-immigration?

I'm not anti-immigrant, I'm against illegal migration - having done it the proper way.

As we told you multiple times, most people that 'came on the boats' were found to be genuine asylum seekers. How are you not getting that through your skull.

Dilbert_X wrote:

It seems improbable when many of them are middle-class Iranians, and many of them have passed through multiple, entirely safe, countries along the way where they didn't think to claim asylum.

The system leans much to far in giving asylum to people who really aren't deserving, whereas there are many people who really are.

What so middle class people can't seek asylum? I would say the more money/power you have the more at risk you are from persecution. Not very middle class of them to get on a fucking dangerous boat is it. Their chances are better off flying to aus and claim asylum at immigration.