| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| Are you giving party talking about issues and letting the public in on the discussion to me? |
|
|
|
 |
Dangles
Balmey Army
Joined: 14 May 2015
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| HAL wrote: | | Are you giving party talking about issues and letting the public in on the discussion to me? |
Are you quoting George W Bush? |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | | David wrote: | | Tannin wrote: | | David wrote: | | Now, what of your absurd claim that a more humane refugee processing policy in Australia is going to lead to every refugee in the world coming here? |
Ahem. You were the one who said - and I quote - "the problem is that we're still dealing with quotas". You were the one who wanted to accept immigrants without limit. Not me mate.
If you really did want to have no quota at all as you have stated, and if those 20 million refugees are - as the UNHCR states and I'm sure that you accept - genuine refugees in desperate straits with nowhere to go, people in fear for their lives, which of them wouldn't come to Australia? Who amongst them would be so stupid as to go somewhere safe, and why would they make that choice? |
The ones who want to go to the UK, or Germany, or Canada, or Sweden, or Chile. Or, as I mentioned, a local non-OECD country with shared language or culture. |
Yer right. If they (a) want to go there, and (b) are allowed to go there, why aren't they there already?
Dur... |
Tannin, are you trolling me? 
Surely you know as well as I do that those countries have refugees. |
Gosh! Really? Wow!
That's the f-ing point David. If those countries already have and take refugees, why are there 20 million people still waiting in camps and other dreadful temporary accommodation hoping one day to go to one of "those countries"? How do you explain that fact? Because you have to explain that fact to stop your open-Australian-borders, no-limit policy looking like monumental; foolishness on a grand scale.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Thanks NJ. I read it. It doesn't say anything of particular relevance to the point at issue, but I read it.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | | Thanks NJ. I read it. It doesn't say anything of particular relevance to the point at issue, but I read it. |
Except for the bit about refugees being constrained in their choice of how and where to seek asylum...and what shapes their decision-making processes...   |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Bahh. Nothing of relevance there.
It says, in essence, that they go where they can go, don't go where thery can't go, and prefer to go where they think they'll get a decent life.
Gee whiz, who'd a thunk it!
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
"The problem for policy makers, and for all governments attempting to minimise the impact of so-called ‘pull-factors’, is that the research generally reveals the role of asylum policy in determining destination choice to be of little significance. A causal link between asylum policy and numbers of arrivals is far from being established. This has significant implications for governments’ attempts at deterrence, particularly where deterrence measures take the form of restrictive or punitive changes to asylum policy."
http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1213/13rp01#_Toc347828415 |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^
While the current measures may not have impacted the number of people choosing to want to come to Australia, there certainly appears to be evidence that they have had an impact on how people choose to try and get here, which is a different thing.
The number of people trying to get here by boat has reduced dramatically.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| How would we know Stui? The media black out means we have no idea how many boats are intercepted... |
|
|
|
|
Pies4shaw 
pies4shaw
Joined: 08 Oct 2007
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yes. I was going to ask the same question.
Surely, the very purpose of the media blackout is to create the impression that we're hearing about these events less often, so they must be decreasing in frequency. |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
News gets out. There's only been a very small number intercepted and each time some news leaked. That happens.
Fact is, boats were turned back and people sent to Manus Island have not been admitted to Australia. So the incentive (Pull factor) of using people smugglers to get here has been taken away.
That research refers to changing destination of choice, not changing means of travel. While the people who may think about using people smugglers are getting the news feed that NO boats have landed in Australia in 2015, they're less likely to spend money getting to Indonesia and getting on a boat.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
nomadjack
Joined: 27 Apr 2006
Location: Essendon
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The two are obviously linked Stui...and you have no true idea of how many boats have been intercepted.
The point of the research is that the actual news doesn't often filter through to those actually seeking asylum.
The main reason I posted the link was because it's pretty clear there are major constraints on where asylum seekers can actually travel to. Which makes the scaremongering around the threat of a supposed mass influx pretty ridiculous.
The other point is that it explains pretty clearly why asylum seekers don't always remain in their first place of arrival. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | | "the research generally reveals the role of asylum policy in determining destination choice to be of little significance. A causal link between asylum policy and numbers of arrivals is far from being established. This has significant implications for governments’ attempts at deterrence, particularly where deterrence measures take the form of restrictive or punitive changes to asylum policy." |
Thank you, my point exactly. Where there is no deterrence policy - David's proposal is to have no "restrictive or punitive" components to asylum policy at all - the above ceases to be relevant. It is talking about degrees of restriction, and it makes the point that increasing the restriction makes little difference. It does NOT address the two end points of the continuum: (a) the present policy where the restriction is total and the influx drops to zero (similarly the Rudd Mark II policy where the restriction was not total but the reward (eventual Australian citizenship) was removed so it was in practice close to zero), and (b) the complete and total lack of restriction as David advocates.
Translating the language of the report into more recognisable terms, we can see that the elasticity of demand is very low. As always in that circumstance, whether you are talking refugee numbers or the price of fish, small and even quite large changes in the price (be that measured in cents per kilo or years in detention) make very little difference to demand.
Don't let that delude you though: supply-demand curves only apply when price is the determining factor. (Price in dollars or in hardship, that makes no difference to the calculations.) But when price drops to zero because supply is effectively infinite (as David suggests we do with immigration) demand increases massively up to the point where all available demand is satisfied. Conversely, when supply drops to zero (As per Rudd II and Abbott policy), the curve no longer applies and no transactions take place. We don't have t o guess this or theorise it, we know from observed facts on the public record that it is true.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| nomadjack wrote: | | The main reason I posted the link was because it's pretty clear there are major constraints on where asylum seekers can actually travel to. Which makes the scaremongering around the threat of a supposed mass influx pretty ridiculous. |
Not so, NJ. Read the thread properly. You will see that David proposed entirely removing those major constraints you mention, and the "scaremongering" you refer to is simply me pointing out the consequences of carrying David's absurd notion through in practice. Obviously, it would never happen because no government would ever be so stupid as to implement it. It is, of course, an absurd scenario, which I painted only to illustrate the absurdity of David's policy by fantasy.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
