Asylum Seekers-should we or shouldn't we?

If you're not willing to do your own research, then you don't belong in an adult debate.

Cheers.

 

Ask the employers.

 

Ah, someone else`s fault again.

 

If these people are able to work, ask the employer why they refuse to employ them. You cannot assume the problem is with the asylum seekers.

 

Male cow excreta.

 

I take it you are unable to provide proof the asylum seekers remain unemployed on purpose?

 

You have the right to remain silent, whatever you say or do will be used against you in the court of public expression!

Couldn't find anything remotely suggesting what you are saying.....Not that I could make complete sense of it again anyway! As I suspected anyway, it is just another hate infused comment!

 

I would have to say free means free to those of us that have experienced freedom from all dimensions......I think we can ascertain and agree that freedom is not simply one dimensional.
What you are saying is that I can simply go around saying "Slippery is a no good filthy pedeaphile" and despite it not being true, it is still my freedom to do so! This is when freedom is used to take someone elses freedom...AND that is when it becomes wrong and causes issues!

That is out of context again slippery. The idea is, is that we do whatever we can. Trouble shooters and innovaters have been impressing beyond the limit of expectations. Pessimism leads to weakness and laziness, optimism leads to strength and growth! Your parables are just excuses for laziness I'm sorry to say slippery!

The world is forever changing, and again we are interdependant partners in this global village. We are not riding solo slippery and can't afford to, actually no one can, unless of course the whole country goes back to a subsistence lifestyle.

Remember the lifeboat ?

They're a non government organisation who tackle many different human rights and social justice issues. They have no vested interest in politics but in humanity! How is that biased?

 

vigilante please don't take this the wrong way, but reading your post has made me feel as though I have been at a revival of some kind. I congratulate you on your optimism.

First question is how many people can this country sustain? Realistically, not happy, warm, and fuzzy stuff. Food, water and ecologically.

 

Here is an interesting chart.

 

I think we have used many excuses to consider population control in Australia in the past. The Howard government were throwing away Plasma money to people to have babies and pretty sure this scheme is still in place. But anyway, technology is improving our efficiencies in many areas. Technology in agriculture is far greater than what it was yesteryear. Desal plants aren't energy efficient at the moment but hear that new technologies are constantly improving on this.

Actually, after reading a number of your posts now, I didn't realise you were a glass half empty type of person slippery!

 

No I'm not, but there is a time to face reality and a time to believe in the Tooth Fairy. This issue is that time in my opinion.

You see we are spending valuable time and money developing band aid solutions that in the end only disguise the issue. Why not actually try solving it. the real problem. You see the issue is you can't solve the problem. While there is humans on this earth we wil have displaced persons seeking asylum. Where should the line be drawn, population wise ? How many is too many ? It really comes back to my very first question...are we as Australians willing to give up the life we currently enjoy ? You see everything will change and everything has to change to accommodate these different cultures and religious beliefs. I am not saying it is good or bad, only that the lifestyle we currently enjoy will be dramatically different than the one we will have to lead in the future. Are we ready for that ?

in your view what sort of population could this country support at its maximum ?

And point of note, I don't do back handed insults. Save that for others.

 

That puts this argument into a little more perspective!

 

I didn't see this as an argument. More a debate from differing perspectives, offering different insights. I was unaware we were arguing.

 

Yes, band aid treatment is what we are applying, along with the red cross and world vision etc, but it has to be done on a humane level. The big doctors are trying to sort out an antedote, so all is not overlooked in terms of the big issue. One of the realities of life is, is that you are going to die slippery! What do you do, throw yourself off a cliff or smash yourself with drugs and live the hard life dying prematurely knowing that it is going to happen anyway! Common this is a nonsense argument!

Again, the world is changing and has changed significantly over the last couple of decades. Mobile phones, internet, social media, cultural diversity in Australia. Australia has changed in many ways, along with every other nation on the planet. I valued the Australian culture of the 70's and 80's but we've moved on since then. Changes are inevitable and therefore we must be adaptable and resilient. I can't complain about the Australia I live in today and don't forsee an issue unless we make things an issue.

On population, I have no actual population view and would be led by the experts. I won't be around for the projected 2050 figure of 35 - 50 million, but by that time i'm sure people would have adapted and technology increased.

 

Yep, on a technicality I withdraw. What is the actual difference anyway?

 

Well from my point of view an argument consists of irrelevant accusations, name calling, and off topic assumptions. Kind of what you seem to get tangled up in with other members on different threads. A debate sticks to the topic and all parties involved discuss said topic in a mature and mindful way. Keeping in mind that we are all different and think differently, and have our own opinions guided by our own thoughts.

If you wish to discuss further my questions still stand, if you don't, then so be it we will move on.

 

hahaha.....I notice that yourself and, I think garry, are reasoning people, whereby you can have a good debate. I've only given what I get, but Ahhhhh slippery, you've changed my attitude in this forum anyway, I must say. I think its a great way to vent frustrations on how we perceive the world, and i'm sure no one takes anything personally. I've learnt heaps from these debates and arguments to be honest. Even from those I hammer and I cope a hammering from.

Now which question are you talking about? did I not address it in the previous post?

 

When you're willing to deposit $175.00 per hour into my bank; then I will access the research for you. Otherwise, a very quick google search will find all the information you need; that's of course you are willing to look, and prepared to be confronted by it, which obviously you're not.

 

There were two questions :

1. In your view, keeping in mind Australia's geography and ecology, how many people can we successfully sustain ?

2. This one is more pertinent to the topic. Are current Australians ready to forgo the lifestyle we currently enjoy to accomodate the growing number of immigrants with cultures and religion, and ideals vastly different to our own, knowing full well that the lifestyle we now have will change dramatically, as it will have to ?

Now I ask the second question with no bias. It is probably the most important question.

 

Your asking me then; I am an employer. I employee two individuals from Africa - both refugees and both willing to work and engage in making a better life for themselves.

When my positions were advertised, I did not get ONE SINGLE responses from a “boatie” looking for work. In fact, not one “boatie” has came into my business inquiring about work, but I have had Africans, and every nationality of Asian people and central Europeans coming in asking about work.

Stop passing the buck back onto us the employers by trying to make us out as the bad guys who won’t employee refugees or asylum seekers - that’s just your way of being frightened to confront the real truth about these “boaties”.

The real truth is by the Government own report and data state; 85% of “boaties” are on welfare up to 5 years, and that’s unacceptable.

You can take this topic off in as many tangents as you like to serve your own agenda, but the truth remains the same, and that is, these “boaties” are coming through Australia’s backdoor simply to access its easy welfare system, and that’s why 85% of that group (boaties) are still on welfare for up to 5 years and counting, and no other groups of refugees are.

If you analogy is correct in simply blaming employers, language and social barriers for these “boaties” not getting work, then other refugee would fit into the same category and would also have a high welfare dependency rate, BUT THEY DON’T - its only the “boaties.”

 

Culldav when these other nationalities come in looking for work do you actually ask them if they are " Boaties " ?

Is this one of interview questions ?

 

vigalante, you seem to be confused over my post, you evidently are torn between liking, and disliking it. The truth is, anyone who wants to work can get a job in this country. You can`t blame employers if the Australian dole queue extends from Hobart to Iraq, and beyond. Not progressive thinking at all, old chap

 

Actually Mak, you initially suggested that employers are to blame, ball`s in your court.

 

Background info Mr Fish.