tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post1057418149551370168..comments2024-03-22T11:55:50.335+13:00Comments on Not PC: Refugees: What’s the problem?Peter Cresswellhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-37337768907518684262012-04-15T16:25:47.440+12:002012-04-15T16:25:47.440+12:00PC - can you expand on the crime figures you'v...PC - can you expand on the crime figures you've seen that do not point to African / Muslim refugees/immigrants etc. committing a disproportionate amount of crime in Europe/Scandanavia? <br /><br />Everything I've seen says they do. Unless it's been sanitized.Stuart. Lnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-48535310853017467702012-04-14T01:58:43.174+12:002012-04-14T01:58:43.174+12:00Great post Peter.
SandrineGreat post Peter.<br />SandrineAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-72586747426541824592012-04-13T14:52:39.615+12:002012-04-13T14:52:39.615+12:00If theye were *honestly* willing to waive rights t...<i>If theye were *honestly* willing to waive rights to the welfare system, they would be going to closer nations that don't offer welfare like we do.</i><br /><br />given that the welfare system encourages the wrong type of immigration in the first place I don't see this a valid point. <br /><br />It's not the fault of the immigrant for choosing the destination but the fault of those who keep advocating for and justifying (as in your case) such a failed system and then complaining about people who coming over and using it. What liberty scott suggested is in fact a good idea.mike250https://www.blogger.com/profile/13771261746381180701noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-203612442635301902012-04-12T14:45:16.573+12:002012-04-12T14:45:16.573+12:00Paul Goodsort. It must be nice to to be able to d...Paul Goodsort. It must be nice to to be able to dismiss whole swathes of society so easily. I assume that had your refugee friend been disabled in some way that you'd have rejected them. Surely we accept refugees as an act of mercy rather than one of profit.<br /><br />In response to the article and those commenters who agree with its sentiments, I can agree with many of your ideas even if they are put forth in an overly melodramatic fashion. <br /><br />Refugees most definitely are worthy of our respect, as such i agree that they should not be forced into a dependency role (though I don't see how the state could be considered as doing this, refugees are not required to be dependent on the state in any where near the sense that they would be with private charity). I also agree that it is appalling that some would deny refuge on the grounds that the cost is too onerous on society. I would hope that only small proportion of society holds such a view (since when did talkback become the pulse of the nation). What the author seems to ignore however is that:<br /><br />1) People do not exist atomised units. Many are also accompanied by families or have families which they intend to relocate when it is safe to do so. These people would likely be excluded from resettlement or families broken up if personal charity was relied upon.<br /><br />2) A system of private charity would be very open to exploitation for private gain - Taito Phillip Field is a prime example of this though the exploitation could be on either side of the equation.<br /><br />3) State management of settlement ensures a certain level of wellbeing (though it could be better) and access to a vast amount of resources and people who can aid in the resettlement process. Lets not forget that many refugees suffer from PTSD and other mental or physical health problems, they are after all fleeing life threatening situations. Educational and linguistic help is also often needed. If we are to leave such things up to private charity I would be surprised if they were dealt with adequately. <br /><br />4) Dependency on the state is unfortunate, however, dependency on a specific individual has much stronger psychological implications. <br /><br />5) State sponsorship is at least bureaucratically impartial. This is not necessarily so for private citizens.<br /><br />6) Why think that this sort of charity will ever eventuate? We already have shortfalls in refugee funding now with nobody offering to help. What makes you think that this will change if govt had nothing to do with it? <br /><br />As far as I'm aware the main concern about the current refugees has more to do with their safety in crossing the Tasman and the fact that they'll be pushing others down the eligibility que. Its also good to remember that people are quite happy to risk the lives of others in order to make a quick buck. You note that refugees take tremendous risks, these risks are not always of their own making (smugglers are not so honest about the conditions of transit methinks). For the Aus and NZ govts encourage such endeavours seems more than a little irresponsible.<br /><br /> Ben.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-79109112594376869722012-04-12T11:51:26.189+12:002012-04-12T11:51:26.189+12:00"Libertarians have always maintained that pea...<i>"Libertarians have always maintained that peaceful people should be able to cross borders freely as long as they forswear any claim on any existing welfare state..."</i><br /><br />Yes, because these 'refugees' are coming to NZ (whoops, they'll settle for Oz now) because they were being persecuted in Malaysia. And they had to bypass nearby Philippines and Indonesia and Singapore and Thailand and Brunei for the same reasons.<br /><br />What do NZ and Oz have that the above nations do not? A generous welfare system and first world pay (just). Hmmm. <br /><br />Flaw in your logic? If theye were *honestly* willing to waive rights to the welfare system, they would be going to closer nations that don't offer welfare like we do.<br /><br />That this is their goal is tacitly admitted by libertyscott above:<br /><i>"The mass "welfare tourism" seen in the EU would be avoided."</i><br /><br />@ Paul G - it's not about a refugee claimant being a nice fella, it's whether they have genuine reason to flee the country they were *last in* (not necessarily their nation of birth). In this case, Malaysia. Because otherwise, all they are is economic migrants trying to rort our immigration points system.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-38847410866531354242012-04-12T09:03:57.639+12:002012-04-12T09:03:57.639+12:00My son plays in a football team with an Afghani re...My son plays in a football team with an Afghani refugee from The Tampa. He is a polite, articulate twenty year old who is studying at Uni. The issue here with any refugees is sorting the wheat from the chaff. That’s to say permitting productive immigrants entry, not allowing them access to long-term state welfare. Two of this group in Darwin I spotted were elderly – so who is going to support them when they get sick etc? Answer = you and me. What concerns me with this group is if the sole reason for fleeing China is religious oppression of Falun Gong then surely a more sympathetic, closer and safer destination would have been say Thailand? The idea of sponsorship appeals to me as it permits refugee advocates to put their money where their mouths are. We definitely need more immigration but I don’t see refugees being any more than part of token U.N quotas because we can’t as a country we can’t currently fiscally afford to support ourselves let alone themPaul Goodsorthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14781782197534347279noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-19762395613430537952012-04-11T22:21:41.119+12:002012-04-11T22:21:41.119+12:00I think KP's concerns, which I understand, are...I think KP's concerns, which I understand, are addressed by the two fundamental points accompanying PC's proposal, with one addition.<br /><br />1. Removing any claim on the welfare state by migrants (which raises the issue about how much tax they ought to pay). That means no state support for housing, income, healthcare, kids' education. The mass "welfare tourism" seen in the EU would be avoided.<br /><br />2. Allowing refugees in on the basis of sponsorship by existing citizens on a one for one basis for a year. That means those who care CAN do so, and help them, directly. <br /><br />I'd also add that anyone proved to have committed a serious criminal offence involving initiation of force (e.g. conviction for murder, assault, rape, theft/fraud) or of advancing activities that threaten the citizenry (e.g. Islamists), would also be excluded. <br /><br />If people have to come one-by-one matched by local citizens, then there isn't going to be anyone overwhelmed. Sure there will be people seeking such sponsorship actively, and middlemen trying to facilitate it, but in the NZ context it ought to work.<br /><br />It would take a lot to offset the current demographic breakdown of NZ, of which the most notable trends are continued growth in the Maori population and stagnation of the Pacific Islander population relatively speaking. It would appear the culture of NZ is being changed more by Maori fecundity and fertility than from foreigners. Bear in mind that you subsidise the locals breeding.Libertyscotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12741049550997300680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-67826297594361185742012-04-11T16:49:16.994+12:002012-04-11T16:49:16.994+12:00@IH Stewart: I confess I could never see what Mr F...@IH Stewart: I confess I could never see what Mr Field did wrong.<br /><br />@Kiwiwit: Precisely. Disugusting, isn't it.<br /><br />@KP: Your daughter was called a slut by a Muslim so we should let these Chinese refugees die.<br /><br />Yes, I can see your logic completely.<br /><br />Perhaps you coudl check your evidence on crime around the European "ghettoes" -- crime figures I've seen show the opposite of what your friends suggest.<br /><br />But if you're opposed to Iranians/Iraqis/Pakistanis/Afganistanis emigrating to your country of choice because they'll fill the country up with people you iwon't like (a country to which you've emigrated yourself, ironically), then presumably you would also advocate those Iranians/Iraqis/Pakistanis/Afganistanis already living there be banned from any further breeding, since there is after all no difference between numbers of people you don't like increasing because they fly there, sail there or come in through their mother's womb, right?<br /><br />That's where your logic is taking you, I'm afraid.Peter Cresswellhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10699845031503699181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-82820035202868981292012-04-11T15:46:41.805+12:002012-04-11T15:46:41.805+12:00nope- not so simple at all. Talking to Europeans t...nope- not so simple at all. Talking to Europeans they tell of ghettos of the North Africans with crime waves around their area and discordant cultural views.<br /><br />My daughter was walking home from the gym at Uni and a Muslim walked past and called her a slut. Sure, his view, but she should've stabbed him for it!<br /><br />Sorry, I'd say they should go to similar cultures. Let them escape Iran/Iraq/Pakistan/Afganistan to Malaysia or Indonesia. Why they would want to come to NZ or Aussie when it is so foreign to their culture and religeon suggests to me that there are other motives involved.KPnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-49113641149355384512012-04-11T12:22:52.166+12:002012-04-11T12:22:52.166+12:00BRAVO, sir!BRAVO, sir!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-50176232721464478492012-04-11T12:18:10.952+12:002012-04-11T12:18:10.952+12:00The greatest wave of voluntary emigration in histo...The greatest wave of voluntary emigration in history was that of tens of millions of Europeans between the mid-19th Century and the early 1920s. It is no surprise that their destination was the Land of the Free, the bastion of capitalism (at that time), America, which was able to absorb this huge influx of people with no need for any form of state welfare. The vision of the global Socialist, by contrast, is that you stay where you are put and do what you are told.Kiwiwithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10507667837257013301noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-11906042.post-26189345303012335542012-04-11T11:38:16.493+12:002012-04-11T11:38:16.493+12:00Taito Phillip Field springs to mind in a convolute...Taito Phillip Field springs to mind in a convoluted sort of way.IHStewarthttp://hamishinauckland.blogspot.co.nz/noreply@blogger.com