Labor ‘baloney’ policy on refugees.
This clip is of the Bolt Report featuring Liberal power broker Michael Kroger, and former Labor leader Mark Latham, who used the word baloney to describe Labor’s policies. Labor has adopted around 90% of the Howard ‘Pacific Solution’ which they described as cruel and inhumane before they came to power and abolished. The only part of Howard's policy not adopted by Labor so far is temporary protection visas, which both Kroger and Latham agree, will come.
The result was that whereas under the previous government the boats stopped coming and refugees were taken in an orderly fashion, we now have flotillas arriving. In 2010 there were 6,889 arrivals, courtesy the human trafficking industry:
Refugees would not be a problem if they to find jobs and integrate into the community as has happened in the past with the Asian wave after Vietnam who, despite the misgivings at the time have been fairly solid citizens. The problem we have is that 85% of refugees are on welfare benefits for their first five years. More here:
This is an enormous burden on the average working Australian, and one they don’t deserve to be lumbered with. It is not unreasonable to expect that those people we take in to find jobs and make a contribution to society. The only reasonable policy out there that allows for the acceptance of refugees without an excessive burden on the population is that of the LDP, which can be found here:
(In part,) Permanent Resident (PR). PR’s have the same rights to live and work as citizens except they cannot vote, they do not receive an Australian passport, they are not entitled to regular welfare payments (though they can still use public health, public education and public infrastructure) and they can be deported if they commit crimes of a significant serious nature (e.g. murder, rape, terrorism).
By such policy you ,first of all, create the whole class of second-hand residents. Current welfare entitlements at least have a rationalization, i.e. you supposedly pay taxes for welfare programs as an insurance which will pay off if you'll stuck without source of income.
ReplyDeleteBut here, with LDP policy, you offer so vicious an injustice like forcing people to pay for others without any right of getting "insurance payments". That is explicit slavery for the part of their lives.
I wonder....nay, I know, why year after year, almost every minor or major political party posing as defender of freedom and individual rights in any given country never proclaims getting rid of welfare state as a final goal of their reforms. They feel morally responsible for those in need.
If you really want to protect rights, if you really want to be a defender of freedom- question your basic moral premise, without it you'll always loose. Because based on that premise almost any extreme left activist is morally superior that any given LDP member.
I suggest that you get your head out of your arse and read our welfare and tax policies.
ReplyDeleteFor any practical libertarian party to get from where we are to where we have to get to in the future, there is a necessity to be able to present a practical transition from the current welfare state to something more realistic.
All of the good ideas in the world, no matter how pure libertarian are going to be much use if you are never in a position to enact them.
BTW and FYI the person you gave such wonderful advise is graduated from Oxford. The difference between your level of education and his is very good seen in this conversation. Thank you for mighty demonstration of this difference. Nobody can do better this than you. Thank you
ReplyDeleteThats the trouble anon, I just seem to keep getting all these Oxford dons posting here every other day.
ReplyDeleteNow piss off.
"Now piss off."
ReplyDeleteOh Jim, you are too soft on these people. Allow me.
Hey Mr. Oxford. When you weren't busy getting stoned, drunk and fornicating (likely on the public purse) in the dorm rooms in welfare-state (and now broke) Britain, did you ever happen to get out and visit places like Singapore?
If you did, you would notice that it has the most skint welfare in the world and yet, has never really had unemployment above 4% (which is the highest it went after a recent recession). If you are stuck without sources of income, you are obliged to either seek assistance from family or join workfare schemes and training programs for you to re-enter the workforce. And saying that, the country has an economy that is the envy of many around the world.
Now granted, Singapore is no libertarian paradise and is quite the nanny state in it's social policies, but it just goes to show that welfare is not quite the magic wand or economic panacea that it's proponents claim to be.
And to answer your question on why the major political parties (particular the ones that philosophically against welfare) decide to retain the status quo in regards to welfare schemes, it has more to do with vote securing than it does with any sort of 'compassion' as you may suggest. There probably are many politicians whom would like to get rid of a lot of welfare schemes for whatever reason, including ones that are known to have detrimental effects, but knowing that to do so would be political suicide. For the LDP to believe in scaling back welfare says a lot about keeping to one's principles, and for that, they deserve praise.
And Mr. Anon Bot,
"BTW and FYI the person you gave such wonderful advise is graduated from Oxford. The difference between your level of indoctrination and his is very good seen in this conversation. Thank you for mighty demonstration of this difference. Nobody can do better this than you. Thank you"
Fixed it for you.
Thanks Alex, I'll try to be a bit more assertive in future. :)
ReplyDelete