Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Kimmo

What a joke

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Nich... said:

I'm still waiting on why the distinction needs to be drawn at 'international' and 'domestic'.

Language barriers on a large scale promote immediate issues in all sorts of ways. Infrastructure for large amounts of people, who will pay for it ? Will you pay to make sure the illegal immigrants keen to just come here are not carrying pests / diseases on their persons or in their belongings that Australia cannot deal with ? Where will the money come from ? I guess we could ask the pollies and public service to take a wage cut. Personally I really like that idea ... When you refer to movement from State to State or territory it is not known to happen on a scale not able to be dealt with, imo.

Even when you say the Taswegians are taking jobs from the locals, why is that so ? Are the locals not skilled in the jobs the Taswegians are taking ? Surely the Taswegians are not willing to work for less than proper wages as set by Australian law

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't believe in open borders and I don't believe in Australia as one state. I like the break up of areas. It may 'waste' lots of money, but to my way of thinking it makes life a balancing act for all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Rybags said:

Why should I have to justify a global set of laws and practices that have been going on for generations?

 

Just because something is "status quo" or done by everyone doesn't give reason to question it.

Opening borders in some free for all exercise would be madness at best.

 

How about the people here who think movement should be easier justify why we should relax entry and residency requirements?

I'm not necessarily saying it should be one way or the other.  I just get really confused (and amused) when people don't at least get the irony (if not outright hypocrisy) in saying that group a coming is bad but group b is good, and then fall back on truisms of 'that's the law'.    If it's just ingroup vs outgroup, then lots of things can count as outgroups. 

 

33 minutes ago, eveln said:

Language barriers on a large scale promote immediate issues in all sorts of ways. Infrastructure for large amounts of people, who will pay for it ? Will you pay to make sure the illegal immigrants keen to just come here are not carrying pests / diseases on their persons or in their belongings that Australia cannot deal with ? Where will the money come from ? I guess we could ask the pollies and public service to take a wage cut. Personally I really like that idea ... When you refer to movement from State to State or territory it is not known to happen on a scale not able to be dealt with, imo.

Even when you say the Taswegians are taking jobs from the locals, why is that so ? Are the locals not skilled in the jobs the Taswegians are taking ? Surely the Taswegians are not willing to work for less than proper wages as set by Australian law

So say they're only English speakers, from NZ (already mostly happens), the UK/US/Canada.  Mostly no language barrier.   Quarantine?  That already happens between states, and different growing districts in states.  Are you saying people that live in Victoria shouldn't be able to go to SA or NSW because there's a risk of ruining their agricultural output?

For your last question, ask yourself why so many miners in other states and territories come from Tasmania, if it's a great place for retirees to go to.

24 minutes ago, eveln said:

I don't believe in open borders and I don't believe in Australia as one state. I like the break up of areas. It may 'waste' lots of money, but to my way of thinking it makes life a balancing act for all

If that were actually the case, you'd believe in less movement of people - outside of tourism - within Australia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we opened the borders we'd have criminals and pan-handlers from 3rd world shitholes in their millions.  No thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So no pan handlers and criminals can cross state or territory borders?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, eveln said:

 

Quite glad I'm not a Taswegian, seems you not like their presence too much 😉 ... guess I'm a mixed breed as I've lived in two States here, slightly longer in this State though.

 

I think you'll find that Nich... Could substitute any number of states having their people go to WA for the mining boom. Not really meant to be a slight on Tasmania. 

 

I thi k the point is about arbitrary borders and which ones matter and why. Why one is legal and one isn't especially with the "taking our jobs" argument. Tasmania is just a place that is a bit weak on jobs at the moment. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, fliptopia said:

 

I think you'll find that Nich... Could substitute any number of states having their people go to WA for the mining boom. Not really meant to be a slight on Tasmania. 

you need to allow some humour :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
8 hours ago, Nich... said:
9 hours ago, eveln said:

Language barriers on a large scale promote immediate issues in all sorts of ways. Infrastructure for large amounts of people, who will pay for it ? Will you pay to make sure the illegal immigrants keen to just come here are not carrying pests / diseases on their persons or in their belongings that Australia cannot deal with ? Where will the money come from ? I guess we could ask the pollies and public service to take a wage cut. Personally I really like that idea ... When you refer to movement from State to State or territory it is not known to happen on a scale not able to be dealt with, imo.

Even when you say the Taswegians are taking jobs from the locals, why is that so ? Are the locals not skilled in the jobs the Taswegians are taking ? Surely the Taswegians are not willing to work for less than proper wages as set by Australian law

So say they're only English speakers, from NZ (already mostly happens), the UK/US/Canada.  Mostly no language barrier.   Quarantine?  That already happens between states, and different growing districts in states.  Are you saying people that live in Victoria shouldn't be able to go to SA or NSW because there's a risk of ruining their agricultural output?

Well with those countries the lack of language difficulties is one less cost. Don't think I mentioned issues as you put up, I think I've said the numbers of Vic.s leaving the State on a permanent basis, is tolerable. For some strange reason a lot of Vic.'s still want to live there ... they only want "out"  through the winter time

I get that you think it's hypocritical.

 

Quote


For your last question, ask yourself why so many miners in other states and territories come from Tasmania, if it's a great place for retirees to go to.

Huh ?

 

Quote

 

8 hours ago, eveln said:

I don't believe in open borders and I don't believe in Australia as one state. I like the break up of areas. It may 'waste' lots of money, but to my way of thinking it makes life a balancing act for all

If that were actually the case, you'd believe in less movement of people - outside of tourism - within Australia.

Just because I like the break up of States, it does not mean I require closed borders between States.... unless of course one State is known to have some horrible virus thing happening that needs to be confined  for the duration that is

My life survives on the tourist dollar. It's a quandary when you see the damage caused to historic cities and monuments by the massive scale of tourists around the world though. The ease of travel today is horrific in that way

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We build laws in the main to fit purpose, sometimes the purpose becomes irrelevant but the law endures.

 

Australia is a collection of states as an accident of history, it could have as easily have been several distinct countries but because the English had settled most of it instead at federation it became one nation. However because it was actually a collection of states the laws do vary across the country to the point where a lawyer is very rarely able to practice in all of them.

 

We do have free passage between states but for practical reasons many foodstuffs do not. W.A. has been fighting a losing battle for decades to keep fruit fly out for example.

 

However as Australians we can choose to live wherever we want or where it is most economic for us to do so and there is sufficient diversity in the country that some parts suit some more than others and we distribute quite well overall.

 

I'm not quite sure how the W.A. mining boom came up in this discussion but the simple fact is that for a time, now over, W.A simply did not have enough miners and would take them from most anywhere to meet demand. It also paid them so well that we had a lot of New Zealanders happily doing fly-in fly-out. They could afford to go home for their two weeks off.

 

That is the way Australia is and how people move around. It might be a bit clunky but on the whole it works.

 

I do find it a bit amusing that Ev is arguing, it seems, to make it more difficult for people to freely move between states when she herself upped sticks from Victoria in search of a better climate 🙂

 

Personally I don't like the FNQ climate much so I would not choose to live there which is an example of how we choose our diverse places to live.

 

When it comes to opening the international borders a different set of circumstances apply.

 

Post WWII Australia was desperate for more people to allow it to grow, but not so desperate as to allow black folks in, White Australia ruled. Not English speaking, please note, you just had to be white so the language barrier issue is a load of codswallop before we start.

 

Over a period of around 35 years people came here from all across Europe in large numbers, the English probably led the pack but large numbers of Greeks, Hungarians, Italians etc etc. Not many Slavs, they had it fine at home, not many Americans, not many Canadians, similar reason. Rather a lot, relatively speaking of New Zealanders, God knows why but they do.

 

However for quite a time, no blacks, no Asians.

 

Australia became involved for a time in the Vietnam War, stupid thing to do but we did.

 

When that war was lost we began to accept Vietnamese emigrants, because, well, we probably felt guilty about it.

 

That was the death of the White Australia policy, now, anyone from anywhere can apply to emigrate here. However, key point, they have to be accepted.

 

Along came the boat people, desperate people trying to escape war and other tyrannies in their countries of birth.

 

what did we do?

 

We put them into processing camps and slowly, very slowly, we processed them, in other words vetted them for acceptance.

 

But, what do we do with those that we find not acceptable?

 

Human nature does not allow us to return them to their countries of origin, they will most likely die there, so they are stuck in the camps.

 

Gradually we have lowered our standards, a fact not often acknowledged, and many originally rejected have now come in.

 

We have to be very careful how we do that or, in one respect I do quite agree with Ry, every man and his dog would be rushing to get here.  Because Australia is a great country but it is also a rather hostile place and cannot support the vast numbers of people its size would imply in anything like the style we are used to, it would quickly become as squalid as southern India for example.

 

So, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place, being increasingly criticised by the rest of the world, a lot of which behaves worse than we do, for holding these people in the camps but well aware that if we let them all in the odd terrorist or more common criminal will be part of the pack and more importantly, the camps will immediately fill up again because Australia will be seen as a soft touch.

 

I'm sorry, I can see no easy answer to our dilemma, the camps have to stay, as much as anything as a deterrent to mass immigrants arriving on our shores.

 

About the best we can do is make life a bit easier in those camps, improve the education standards so that perhaps we will admit the children and once they establish themselves here they can be allowed to bring in their parents, from the camps without their being a burden upon our society.

 

But not too easy, or the camps will actually look attractive to desperate people.

 

It's not a solution, it wont work, we are talking generations upon generations of controlled immigration, utterly impractical. But, apart from getting proactive and sorting out the countries these people are coming from so that they actually want to live there there is no other option that I can see and I'd suggest we do not have the wherewithal  to even think about attempting the proactive approach.

 

We really are between a rock and a hard place.

 

Perhaps, just perhaps, there is a lesson in the Vietnam experience.

 

Initially we had quite a flood of refugees. Not any more, Vietnam sorted itself out, now we are friends, people holiday there, but it took time.

 

So, as hard as it may be and as criticised as we will be perhaps the camps are the only answer whilst these countries these people are fleeing from sort themselves out.

 

I don't know if they can or if there will be genocide upon genocide, but the hard line says we have to let them go and do whatever they will do. Bleeding hearts will hate it but it is not incumbent upon us to take on the issues of distressed nations that have floundered out of control. If we do that we too will lose control.

 

It is a very harsh world, we have to be harsh ourselves or we will be lost in the flood.

 

In some ways I can't believe I'm writing this because in my heart of heats I object to the camps, I object to America's wall, which by the by I think is stupid, but I cannot see another way.

 

If you think you can please enlighten me.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, chrisg said:

 

I do find it a bit amusing that Ev is arguing, it seems, to make it more difficult for people to freely move between states when she herself upped sticks from Victoria in search of a better climate

ffs go get your reading glasses from your arm chair old man !

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROFL!!!

 

Now who is calling who names ?

 

I am very unclear, from the manner in which you have worded several responses in this thread as to just what it is you ARE actually advocating.

 

You've talked more than once about people coming from other states and supposedly taking away work from people that already live in the target state, which I happen to think is probably not correct, in fact the government encourages people to move interstate for work by subsidising movement costs. But the implication is that it should be more difficult to move, almost as if one were moving to another country.

 

Then in a later post you seem to reverse that belief, so what are you actually saying ?

 

BTW, i don't need reading glasses, my very low powered corrective lenses work perfectly fine for all occasions, and I do not possess an armchair 🙂

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

um. if you really care @chrisg then go back and read some of Nich's posts

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Nich... said:

So no pan handlers and criminals can cross state or territory borders?

 

Yes. Being Australian is a right.

Becoming Australian is a privilege.

 

Ergo, total freedom within (well ok, as much as possible), but only for Australians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, eveln said:

um. if you really care @chrisg then go back and read some of Nich's posts

 

🙂

 

I don't actually really care much at all, I also find Nich somewhat tiresome on occasion, with far more questions than answers. 

 

However I did spend some time on crafting my response because it is something I have been grappling with for a while. I don't like my answer, but it is the only honest one I can give.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Leonid said:

 

Yes. Being Australian is a right.

Becoming Australian is a privilege.

 

Ergo, total freedom within (well ok, as much as possible), but only for Australians.

Not really, don't need to become Australian to get a visa and ship out here to work.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Nich... said:

Not really, don't need to become Australian to get a visa and ship out here to work.

 

Getting a visa entitles you to temporary rights. Which are removable at any time at the discretion of the Minister.

 

The EU is not a federal government for a collection of states in the country EU. It is an autocratic federal government for a collection of countries that do not necessarily want to be federated.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sounds more like American rather than Australian states, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Nich... said:

Sounds more like American rather than Australian states, eh?

 

Nope. American states ceded sovereignty to their federal government. Not by piecemeal treaty as in the EU.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, eveln said:

you need to allow some humour 🙂

 

Ye gods, it's getting hard to be sure at times 😉

3 hours ago, Leonid said:

 

Nope. American states ceded sovereignty to their federal government. Not by piecemeal treaty as in the EU.

 

Which happened overnight? They all agreed at the same time and didn't take years to agree and there was no fighting about the right way in the mean time? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think the various States of the USA had individual kingdoms as such did they Fliptopia ? The EU is supposedly about ease of travel, less requirement of passports,  and financial benefits isn't it ?

It did take a number of years from the initial proposal of the EU to get it happening iirc. And well really a number of the countries witihin the EU don't appear that much stronger as a result ... they still seem to be grappling financially ... I tell you what though, they are inundated with peoples from elsewhere, both in holiday and refugee mode

 

@chrisg I made no reference to your post in general, only your assumption of my posts, which is why I quoted the one line only.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, fliptopia said:

Which happened overnight? They all agreed at the same time and didn't take years to agree and there was no fighting about the right way in the mean time

 

Off course it didn’t happen overnight but it did happen by choice of entry by the state under conditions. Every state upon entry ceded sovereignty immediately. People in every state that acceded to the Union knew that they were joining a Federal Republic.

 

The EU is seizeure of sovereignty by stealth and autocracy where no EU citizen was ever asked upon entry into the EUC whether they ever wanted to become part of a state spanning Europe.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's not quite true Leo, it tends to vary by country.

 

The currently most notorious is England of course with Brexit but when they first joined they had a hell of a fight to be admitted and the country in general was very annoyed with the repeated veto from De Gaulle. France had a great deal more influence within the Union then.

 

The concept of the EU is really quite sensible but I'm in broad agreement with you that it has lost its way. That is not to say it could not recover but not the way it is being administered at the moment.

 

It's difficult to say when it began to get into trouble but if I had to guess I'd say it pretty much coincided with the fall of the USSR and of old Warsaw Pact countries being admitted to the union.

 

The reunification of Germany in particular distorted the balance of the nations considerably.

 

I do still think it could be recovered but with Britain so determined apparently to leave it is probably the beginning of the end.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Leonid said:

 

Nope. American states ceded sovereignty to their federal government. Not by piecemeal treaty as in the EU.

Ah yes.  Not at all unlike the US, because all States love ceding their rights to the Federal Government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/11/2019 at 4:34 PM, Rybags said:

I don't get this obsession with the need for immigration - it's a joke even under Liberal.  The policy needs to be based on the needs of the country, not the incoming individual.

 

"In 2012, it’s arguably just as much in Australia’s interests to boost its population numbers, in the interests of economic security and (according to some) military security also. And again, immigration – not an accelerated breeding program of naturalised Australians – is the only way this can realistically occur. As domestic industries increasingly surrender to global competition and as energy, agriculture and services industries increasingly depend on foreign markets for their long term survival, the issue of Australia’s relatively small population – despite its huge continental mass – raises little by way of public debate. A larger domestic population might provide markets for domestic industries, for local employment and for community wide infrastructure." [emphasis added] link

 

elliott-aus-growth-1.png

 

elliott-aus-growth-2.png

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

be good if they actually considered habitable mass versus total area

 

it's like suggesting morbidly obese people are all muscle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×