Chat Forum
It is currently Thu Aug 06, 2020 1:22 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28120
Location: Queensland
The Australian government looks set to benefit from the turmoil in Hong Kong, by opening our doors and our country to Hong Kong's most wealthy and skilled residents.

This will be great for our economy and country more broadly. No only will these migrants bring immense wealth into Australia, but they will bring new knowledge and skills. Australia has a history of benefiting from the movement of opressed minorities. We offered similar safe-haven for white South Africans in the early 1990's, liberating them from the terrors of a tolerant and apartheid-free society.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/austral ... 559fp.html
Quote:
Australia set to join 'the greatest human capital harvest in recent memory'
Peter Hartcher
July 7, 2020 — 12.01am

Australia is about to grant special immigration access for Hong Kong people who want to flee the newly repressive law imposed by Beijing to remove some key liberties. Australia's federal cabinet is scheduled to consider some options at its Wednesday meeting.

Whatever the specifics, Scott Morrison has signalled the result already. Asked last week whether he was considering offering safe haven to Hong Kongers, he said: "If you are asking are we prepared to step up and provide support? The answer is yes."

But is this a good idea? Australia won't be the only country offering an escape route, and it won't be the first time that Canberra has given asylum to Chinese political refugees.

Britain has said it will create an urgent pathway to citizenship for up to 3 million Hong Kong citizens who were born before Britain handed the territory back to China in 1997. That's about 40 per cent of Hong Kong's entire population. Taiwan has opened an office specifically to assist Hong Kong refugees who want to relocate. And the US is considering special treatment for people fleeing the Chinese territory.

Australia's last such initiative was Bob Hawke's famous decision after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre to allow Chinese students studying in Australia to remain. Ultimately, some 42,000 permanent residency visas were granted as a result.

As the cabinet weighs Australia's options on Wednesday, it needs to keep in mind six potential problems, as well as some serious factors in favour. The first problem? There will be no shortage of places in the immigration program – Australia's net intake will collapse by 85 per cent this financial year because of the coronavirus. But at a time of deep recession and high unemployment, is it wise to allow large numbers of Hong Kong immigrants special access? Would we hear the complaint that they're "taking Australian jobs"?

Second would be the problem of housing prices. A sudden rush of well-off immigrants could drive Sydney and Melbourne housing prices to levels even more unaffordable for ordinary Australians. This is exactly what happened in the case of the Canadian city of Vancouver in the 1990s. And rising house prices in Australia at a time of high unemployment would be especially aggravating.

Third is the pandemic problem. The border is closed. Even the border between NSW and Victoria. How could you safely allow mass movements from abroad?

Fourth is the risk that any wave of Hong Kong immigrants into Australia could contain covert agents of Chinese Communist Party influence to reinforce the subversive work of the United Front Work Department.

Fifth is the moral question. How can Australia justify making special arrangements for relatively well-off people losing their liberties in one country over the 34 million refugees already driven from their homelands by war or other trauma worldwide?

Sixth is the question of the Chinese government's retaliation. A Beijing spokesman has said that Britain can expect "countermeasures" for its decision and warned Australia not to "go further down the wrong path".

The CCP already has launched a multi-pronged pressure campaign against Australia – a propaganda effort lashing Australia as a "racist" country, a freeze on political contact, punitive measures in place or threatened against some $25 billion worth of Australian exports, and intensive cyber intrusion.

And the other side of the story? The first four problems I've listed are all problems of management, not principle. With careful management, risks can be minimised or eliminated. The number and timing of Hong Kong immigrants can be controlled to prevent big or disruptive movements. For instance, there are a few tens of thousands of Hong Kong people living in Australia already, on temporary visas or with permanent residency. Canberra could allow them favourable terms for winning full citizenship. The only thing that would change would be their immigration status, and sense of security.

New inflows could be controlled so that numbers are modest and manageable. The options before the cabinet on Wednesday will not include anything like the British scale but will be limited to tens of thousands.

All arrivals during the pandemic would need to be subject to health checks. And the authorities would need to conduct security screening – Australia welcomes people who value our democratic liberties, not hostile forces that would prefer to extinguish them.

As for the moral question, it may be unfair but while Australia's immigration program has a humanitarian quota it is also a national recruitment project. As a Canadian immigration lawyer, Richard Kurland, put it: "This is probably going to be the greatest human capital harvest in recent memory."
The Australian policy will give priority to entrepreneurs, business people, investors and, possibly, entire companies that want to relocate from Hong Kong to Australia. In other words, the idea is to favour immigrants who will create as many jobs as possible, not "take" jobs.

And Beijing's retaliation? The Chinese government will find or create any pretext to continue pressuring Australia. President Xi Jinping has sent "a high-level central party decision concerning Australia to every government ministry and to officials running China's state-owned enterprises at home and abroad, along with tourism and education agents in China, that people around Xi have adopted a hostile approach towards Australia", the Australian sinologist John Fitzgerald wrote last month.

It's already happening and will continue in any case, so Australia should simply continue to act in its national interest and not live in fear. A policy to welcome Hong Kong's high-quality talent will be inherently a self-interested one of national gain, but will be presented as a principled act in defence of liberty.

If well managed, it is a good idea that will work for Australia and create problems for Beijing. It'd be a bad look for China's people to be fleeing in fear of their government. And besides, the CCP would have to find a new line of propaganda attack against Australia – it could hardly call such a decision racist.

Peter Hartcher is international editor.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Mar 21, 2020 11:22 am
Posts: 994
Location: Aotearoa
Ali's Choice wrote:
Australia has a history of benefiting from the movement of oppressed minorities.
Pity about its own oppressed minority.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28120
Location: Queensland
Muttonbirds wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Australia has a history of benefiting from the movement of oppressed minorities.
Pity about its own oppressed minority.


South Sudanese refugees?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:15 am
Posts: 600
Do the Australian people have any democratic say in this, or will it just be decided for them?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:57 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28120
Location: Queensland
massive_field_goal wrote:
Do the Australian people have any democratic say in this, or will it just be decided for them?


I'm not sure that allowing Australians to vote on every group of migrants who enter the country would be a recipe for success.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 3:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16725
Location: STRAYA PLUM
massive_field_goal wrote:
Do the Australian people have any democratic say in this, or will it just be decided for them?


We vote for our leaders who then make decisions like this in parliament. If we dont like those decisions we can vote the people making them out. This is much like most democratic countries.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:15 am
Posts: 600
What are the liberal and labour immigration policies and goals exactly? I don't think they have ever been spelled out explicitly.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:04 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28120
Location: Queensland
massive_field_goal wrote:
What are the liberal and labour immigration policies and goals exactly? I don't think they have ever been spelled out explicitly.


Both parties support migration as it's helped keep our economy growing and our house prices high. In 2019 Australia had a net migration of around 300,000. Most of those places are allocated for skilled/wealthy migrants but there is also a humanitarian cohort.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 13243
You'll be competing against the UK.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-53246899


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 4:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28120
Location: Queensland
LandOTurk wrote:
You'll be competing against the UK.

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-53246899


I'm sure there are plenty of wealthy/skilled Hong Kong residents to go around. Besides, we are closer to Asia and we are a healthier, safer society during these challenging times.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 5:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3681
We don't want no more fvcking mods living here! :x


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 5:46 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 701
Ali's Choice wrote:
...liberating them from the terrors of a tolerant and apartheid-free society.


Orly?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jul 07, 2020 11:32 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 12:39 pm
Posts: 1755
Farva wrote:
massive_field_goal wrote:
Do the Australian people have any democratic say in this, or will it just be decided for them?


We vote for our leaders who then make decisions like this in parliament. If we dont like those decisions we can vote the people making them out. This is much like most democratic countries.



I would have thoughts that’s a broadly understood concept.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 12:52 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 5378
I've no issues with this in principle but they should be processed for visas after the refugees that are held offshore.

It's ethically dubious to give them priority


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:06 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5017
Good call Pat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28120
Location: Queensland
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
I've no issues with this in principle but they should be processed for visas after the refugees that are held offshore.

It's ethically dubious to give them priority


Morally dubious perhaps?

It is clear that these cashed up HK residents will be prioritised ahead of all other migrant applications. This is partly an economic decision by the Australian federal govt, to boost GDP and keep home prices high, and partly a political decision, flipping the bird at the CCP.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:23 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 5378
Ali's Choice wrote:
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
I've no issues with this in principle but they should be processed for visas after the refugees that are held offshore.

It's ethically dubious to give them priority


Morally dubious perhaps?

It is clear that these cashed up HK residents will be prioritised ahead of all other migrant applications. This is partly an economic decision by the Australian federal govt, to boost GDP and keep home prices high, and partly a political decision, flipping the bird at the CCP.


I'm an atheist so it's an Ethical issue.

If you read the article you posted, the cashed up residents are the problem as they will create many issues with things like house prices and optics about "They stole my job".

Whilst it involves economics, the message is humanitarian - it's wrong for them to be prioritised if by a liberal government who harp on about Queues when it comes to refugees


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28120
Location: Queensland
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
I'm an atheist so it's an Ethical issue.

If you read the article you posted, the cashed up residents are the problem as they will create many issues with things like house prices and optics about "They stole my job".

Whilst it involves economics, the message is humanitarian - it's wrong for them to be prioritised if by a liberal government who harp on about Queues when it comes to refugees


There will be lots of problems caused by allowing hundreds of thousands/millions of HK residents into Australia. I completely agree with you that these people should not be our priority, but as we all know there isn't really a queue, and our migration intake is haphazard and 'case-by-case'. It's all about politics right now, and Morrison wanting to appeal to the right of his party by sending a big "f**k you' message to the CCP. We have much more pressing issues to concern ourselves right now than relocating wealthy residents of HK.

As an aside, the article seems to suggest that a huge portion of HK's populace will leave. Surely even with the new security laws many people will want to stay living in Hong Kong?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 2897
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
I've no issues with this in principle but they should be processed for visas after the refugees that are held offshore.

It's ethically dubious to give them priority


Morally dubious perhaps?

It is clear that these cashed up HK residents will be prioritised ahead of all other migrant applications. This is partly an economic decision by the Australian federal govt, to boost GDP and keep home prices high, and partly a political decision, flipping the bird at the CCP.


I'm an atheist so it's an Ethical issue.

If you read the article you posted, the cashed up residents are the problem as they will create many issues with things like house prices and optics about "They stole my job".

Whilst it involves economics, the message is humanitarian - it's wrong for them to be prioritised if by a liberal government who harp on about Queues when it comes to refugees


Not looking for an argument, but what does being atheist have to do with it?

Theres many aspects.

Moral/ethical - helping people escape their current situation
Human capital - bringing smart people here to boost Australia's workforce
Cash - Richer people are likely going to be a net positive on the economy.

Which point or points you think are most important can depend on multiple things. Religion or lack of doesn't matter either way.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28120
Location: Queensland
Sensible Stephen wrote:
Not looking for an argument, but what does being atheist have to do with it?

Theres many aspects.

Moral/ethical - helping people escape their current situation
Human capital - bringing smart people here to boost Australia's workforce
Cash - Richer people are likely going to be a net positive on the economy.

Which point or points you think are most important can depend on multiple things. Religion or lack of doesn't matter either way.


I think his point is that the word 'moral' usually has strong religious connotations.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 5378
Sensible Stephen wrote:
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
I've no issues with this in principle but they should be processed for visas after the refugees that are held offshore.

It's ethically dubious to give them priority


Morally dubious perhaps?

It is clear that these cashed up HK residents will be prioritised ahead of all other migrant applications. This is partly an economic decision by the Australian federal govt, to boost GDP and keep home prices high, and partly a political decision, flipping the bird at the CCP.


I'm an atheist so it's an Ethical issue.

If you read the article you posted, the cashed up residents are the problem as they will create many issues with things like house prices and optics about "They stole my job".

Whilst it involves economics, the message is humanitarian - it's wrong for them to be prioritised if by a liberal government who harp on about Queues when it comes to refugees


Not looking for an argument, but what does being atheist have to do with it?

Theres many aspects.

Moral/ethical - helping people escape their current situation
Human capital - bringing smart people here to boost Australia's workforce
Cash - Richer people are likely going to be a net positive on the economy.

Which point or points you think are most important can depend on multiple things. Religion or lack of doesn't matter either way.


Morals are generally connotated with religious people.

I'm not arguing either but you haven't mentioned the other refugees who have a legal right to be processed but are being held offshore as punishment....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 2897
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
Sensible Stephen wrote:
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
I've no issues with this in principle but they should be processed for visas after the refugees that are held offshore.

It's ethically dubious to give them priority


Morally dubious perhaps?

It is clear that these cashed up HK residents will be prioritised ahead of all other migrant applications. This is partly an economic decision by the Australian federal govt, to boost GDP and keep home prices high, and partly a political decision, flipping the bird at the CCP.


I'm an atheist so it's an Ethical issue.

If you read the article you posted, the cashed up residents are the problem as they will create many issues with things like house prices and optics about "They stole my job".

Whilst it involves economics, the message is humanitarian - it's wrong for them to be prioritised if by a liberal government who harp on about Queues when it comes to refugees


Not looking for an argument, but what does being atheist have to do with it?

Theres many aspects.

Moral/ethical - helping people escape their current situation
Human capital - bringing smart people here to boost Australia's workforce
Cash - Richer people are likely going to be a net positive on the economy.

Which point or points you think are most important can depend on multiple things. Religion or lack of doesn't matter either way.


Morals are generally connotated with religious people.

I'm not arguing either but you haven't mentioned the other refugees who have a legal right to be processed but are being held offshore as punishment....


Why would I mention them? I just laid out various reasons for processing people. Other refugees would fall under the moral/ethical point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2012 3:45 am
Posts: 2897
Ali's Choice wrote:
Sensible Stephen wrote:
Not looking for an argument, but what does being atheist have to do with it?

Theres many aspects.

Moral/ethical - helping people escape their current situation
Human capital - bringing smart people here to boost Australia's workforce
Cash - Richer people are likely going to be a net positive on the economy.

Which point or points you think are most important can depend on multiple things. Religion or lack of doesn't matter either way.


I think his point is that the word 'moral' usually has strong religious connotations.


Ah right. To me morals are not a religious thing.

I don't buy into the right-wing talking points about needing a Judeo-Christian base for society.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 1:51 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 5378
Sensible Stephen wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Sensible Stephen wrote:
Not looking for an argument, but what does being atheist have to do with it?

Theres many aspects.

Moral/ethical - helping people escape their current situation
Human capital - bringing smart people here to boost Australia's workforce
Cash - Richer people are likely going to be a net positive on the economy.

Which point or points you think are most important can depend on multiple things. Religion or lack of doesn't matter either way.


I think his point is that the word 'moral' usually has strong religious connotations.


Ah right. To me morals are not a religious thing.

I don't buy into the right-wing talking points about needing a Judeo-Christian base for society.


You may not but the LNP absolutely do - which is one of the reasons they are so harsh about refugees in general. It's an odd viewpoint but espoused by many members including the Prime Minister.

Any discussion about large amounts of immigrants can't avoid the Christmas Island fiasco


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17321
Ali's Choice wrote:
The Australian government looks set to benefit from the turmoil in Hong Kong, by opening our doors and our country to Hong Kong's most wealthy and skilled residents.

This will be great for our economy and country more broadly. No only will these migrants bring immense wealth into Australia, but they will bring new knowledge and skills. Australia has a history of benefiting from the movement of opressed minorities. We offered similar safe-haven for white South Africans in the early 1990's, liberating them from the terrors of a tolerant and apartheid-free society.

https://www.smh.com.au/national/austral ... 559fp.html
Spoiler: show
Quote:
Australia set to join 'the greatest human capital harvest in recent memory'
Peter Hartcher
July 7, 2020 — 12.01am

Australia is about to grant special immigration access for Hong Kong people who want to flee the newly repressive law imposed by Beijing to remove some key liberties. Australia's federal cabinet is scheduled to consider some options at its Wednesday meeting.

Whatever the specifics, Scott Morrison has signalled the result already. Asked last week whether he was considering offering safe haven to Hong Kongers, he said: "If you are asking are we prepared to step up and provide support? The answer is yes."

But is this a good idea? Australia won't be the only country offering an escape route, and it won't be the first time that Canberra has given asylum to Chinese political refugees.

Britain has said it will create an urgent pathway to citizenship for up to 3 million Hong Kong citizens who were born before Britain handed the territory back to China in 1997. That's about 40 per cent of Hong Kong's entire population. Taiwan has opened an office specifically to assist Hong Kong refugees who want to relocate. And the US is considering special treatment for people fleeing the Chinese territory.

Australia's last such initiative was Bob Hawke's famous decision after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre to allow Chinese students studying in Australia to remain. Ultimately, some 42,000 permanent residency visas were granted as a result.

As the cabinet weighs Australia's options on Wednesday, it needs to keep in mind six potential problems, as well as some serious factors in favour. The first problem? There will be no shortage of places in the immigration program – Australia's net intake will collapse by 85 per cent this financial year because of the coronavirus. But at a time of deep recession and high unemployment, is it wise to allow large numbers of Hong Kong immigrants special access? Would we hear the complaint that they're "taking Australian jobs"?

Second would be the problem of housing prices. A sudden rush of well-off immigrants could drive Sydney and Melbourne housing prices to levels even more unaffordable for ordinary Australians. This is exactly what happened in the case of the Canadian city of Vancouver in the 1990s. And rising house prices in Australia at a time of high unemployment would be especially aggravating.

Third is the pandemic problem. The border is closed. Even the border between NSW and Victoria. How could you safely allow mass movements from abroad?

Fourth is the risk that any wave of Hong Kong immigrants into Australia could contain covert agents of Chinese Communist Party influence to reinforce the subversive work of the United Front Work Department.

Fifth is the moral question. How can Australia justify making special arrangements for relatively well-off people losing their liberties in one country over the 34 million refugees already driven from their homelands by war or other trauma worldwide?

Sixth is the question of the Chinese government's retaliation. A Beijing spokesman has said that Britain can expect "countermeasures" for its decision and warned Australia not to "go further down the wrong path".

The CCP already has launched a multi-pronged pressure campaign against Australia – a propaganda effort lashing Australia as a "racist" country, a freeze on political contact, punitive measures in place or threatened against some $25 billion worth of Australian exports, and intensive cyber intrusion.

And the other side of the story? The first four problems I've listed are all problems of management, not principle. With careful management, risks can be minimised or eliminated. The number and timing of Hong Kong immigrants can be controlled to prevent big or disruptive movements. For instance, there are a few tens of thousands of Hong Kong people living in Australia already, on temporary visas or with permanent residency. Canberra could allow them favourable terms for winning full citizenship. The only thing that would change would be their immigration status, and sense of security.

New inflows could be controlled so that numbers are modest and manageable. The options before the cabinet on Wednesday will not include anything like the British scale but will be limited to tens of thousands.

All arrivals during the pandemic would need to be subject to health checks. And the authorities would need to conduct security screening – Australia welcomes people who value our democratic liberties, not hostile forces that would prefer to extinguish them.

As for the moral question, it may be unfair but while Australia's immigration program has a humanitarian quota it is also a national recruitment project. As a Canadian immigration lawyer, Richard Kurland, put it: "This is probably going to be the greatest human capital harvest in recent memory."
The Australian policy will give priority to entrepreneurs, business people, investors and, possibly, entire companies that want to relocate from Hong Kong to Australia. In other words, the idea is to favour immigrants who will create as many jobs as possible, not "take" jobs.

And Beijing's retaliation? The Chinese government will find or create any pretext to continue pressuring Australia. President Xi Jinping has sent "a high-level central party decision concerning Australia to every government ministry and to officials running China's state-owned enterprises at home and abroad, along with tourism and education agents in China, that people around Xi have adopted a hostile approach towards Australia", the Australian sinologist John Fitzgerald wrote last month.

It's already happening and will continue in any case, so Australia should simply continue to act in its national interest and not live in fear. A policy to welcome Hong Kong's high-quality talent will be inherently a self-interested one of national gain, but will be presented as a principled act in defence of liberty.

If well managed, it is a good idea that will work for Australia and create problems for Beijing. It'd be a bad look for China's people to be fleeing in fear of their government. And besides, the CCP would have to find a new line of propaganda attack against Australia – it could hardly call such a decision racist.

Peter Hartcher is international editor.


I thought Aussie already had ample input by the triads and drug gangs?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 2:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 17321
Clogs wrote:
We don't want no more fvcking mods living here! :x


Excellent point, well put. :nod:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16725
Location: STRAYA PLUM
I think a large influx of skilled people from Hong Kong could do wonders for our economy.

However, we have a humanitarian influx of around 10k a year, so they couldnt cover that spot - they are certainly not in the same boat as many others seeking asylum. If we are suggesting that they come under that intake it would be as hair brained as Peter Dutton's idea of using that to get white farmers over from South Africa.

However, bring them in under either a special influx or under the skilled workers section and it works a treat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28120
Location: Queensland
Farva wrote:
I think a large influx of skilled people from Hong Kong could do wonders for our economy.

However, we have a humanitarian influx of around 10k a year, so they couldnt cover that spot - they are certainly not in the same boat as many others seeking asylum. If we are suggesting that they come under that intake it would be as hair brained as Peter Dutton's idea of using that to get white farmers over from South Africa.

However, bring them in under either a special influx or under the skilled workers section and it works a treat.


In 2019 we had a net migration of around 300K. This year that's expected to be closer to zero, or even a negative net migration, as international students and workers have returned home and cannot return. So what that does mean is that next year we could potentially double our annual intake, and many of those could be highly skilled people fleeing HK.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:33 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 5378
Ali's Choice wrote:
Farva wrote:
I think a large influx of skilled people from Hong Kong could do wonders for our economy.

However, we have a humanitarian influx of around 10k a year, so they couldnt cover that spot - they are certainly not in the same boat as many others seeking asylum. If we are suggesting that they come under that intake it would be as hair brained as Peter Dutton's idea of using that to get white farmers over from South Africa.

However, bring them in under either a special influx or under the skilled workers section and it works a treat.


In 2019 we had a net migration of around 300K. This year that's expected to be closer to zero, or even a negative net migration, as international students and workers have returned home and cannot return. So what that does mean is that next year we could potentially double our annual intake, and many of those could be highly skilled people fleeing HK.


Before or after the other refugees?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16725
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Farva wrote:
I think a large influx of skilled people from Hong Kong could do wonders for our economy.

However, we have a humanitarian influx of around 10k a year, so they couldnt cover that spot - they are certainly not in the same boat as many others seeking asylum. If we are suggesting that they come under that intake it would be as hair brained as Peter Dutton's idea of using that to get white farmers over from South Africa.

However, bring them in under either a special influx or under the skilled workers section and it works a treat.


In 2019 we had a net migration of around 300K. This year that's expected to be closer to zero, or even a negative net migration, as international students and workers have returned home and cannot return. So what that does mean is that next year we could potentially double our annual intake, and many of those could be highly skilled people fleeing HK.


Before or after the other refugees?


Dont use the refugee intake to cover this is the answer. That is completely separate. We arent all Peter Dutton.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:35 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5017
Ted. wrote:
Clogs wrote:
We don't want no more fvcking mods living here! :x


Excellent point, well put. :nod:


Finally a crusade I think we (actual Australians and others living in Aus) can all get behind.

Thomas out .... cnut.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:37 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 28120
Location: Queensland
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Farva wrote:
I think a large influx of skilled people from Hong Kong could do wonders for our economy.

However, we have a humanitarian influx of around 10k a year, so they couldnt cover that spot - they are certainly not in the same boat as many others seeking asylum. If we are suggesting that they come under that intake it would be as hair brained as Peter Dutton's idea of using that to get white farmers over from South Africa.

However, bring them in under either a special influx or under the skilled workers section and it works a treat.


In 2019 we had a net migration of around 300K. This year that's expected to be closer to zero, or even a negative net migration, as international students and workers have returned home and cannot return. So what that does mean is that next year we could potentially double our annual intake, and many of those could be highly skilled people fleeing HK.


Before or after the other refugees?


After. If it was up to me our intake would be solely humanitarian. Leave the skilled migrants to other countries unless they also qualify for humanitarian reasons. An argument could be made that despite the tightened security laws, wealthy HK residents do not qualify under our humanitarian guidelines.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 3:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4173
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
I've no issues with this in principle but they should be processed for visas after the refugees that are held offshore.

It's ethically dubious to give them priority


Morally dubious perhaps?

It is clear that these cashed up HK residents will be prioritised ahead of all other migrant applications. This is partly an economic decision by the Australian federal govt, to boost GDP and keep home prices high, and partly a political decision, flipping the bird at the CCP.


I'm an atheist so it's an Ethical issue.

If you read the article you posted, the cashed up residents are the problem as they will create many issues with things like house prices and optics about "They stole my job".

Whilst it involves economics, the message is humanitarian - it's wrong for them to be prioritised if by a liberal government who harp on about Queues when it comes to refugees


Which ones are queue jumping though? - the ones who make an application through proper channels whilst domiciled in their home state, and get a visa before traveling here, or the ones who decided to try to illegally enter without a visa?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 5378
Farva wrote:
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Farva wrote:
I think a large influx of skilled people from Hong Kong could do wonders for our economy.

However, we have a humanitarian influx of around 10k a year, so they couldnt cover that spot - they are certainly not in the same boat as many others seeking asylum. If we are suggesting that they come under that intake it would be as hair brained as Peter Dutton's idea of using that to get white farmers over from South Africa.

However, bring them in under either a special influx or under the skilled workers section and it works a treat.


In 2019 we had a net migration of around 300K. This year that's expected to be closer to zero, or even a negative net migration, as international students and workers have returned home and cannot return. So what that does mean is that next year we could potentially double our annual intake, and many of those could be highly skilled people fleeing HK.


Before or after the other refugees?


Dont use the refugee intake to cover this is the answer. That is completely separate. We arent all Peter Dutton.


I never said you were,

The media coverage and press releases are all about the humanitarian aspect Vs the evil CCP.

If that's the case, the refugees (yes Sluggy) should be processed first.

Any Humanitarian applications should be via Christmas Island as per the LNP methodology.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 5378
Ellafan wrote:
Which ones are queue jumping though? - the ones who make an application through proper channels whilst domiciled in their home state, and get a visa before traveling here, or the ones who decided to try to illegally enter without a visa?


Refugees don't need a visa to claim asylum....


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:19 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4173
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
Ellafan wrote:
Which ones are queue jumping though? - the ones who make an application through proper channels whilst domiciled in their home state, and get a visa before traveling here, or the ones who decided to try to illegally enter without a visa?


Refugees don't need a visa to claim asylum....


So, do you say that by paying a people smuggler to bring them here on a boat, and claim asylum, they are entitled to advance their visa application up the queue in front of other applicants?

There are some people in a refugee camp adjacent to the Sudan who might disagree.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 4:38 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2016 1:50 am
Posts: 5378
Ellafan wrote:
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
Ellafan wrote:
Which ones are queue jumping though? - the ones who make an application through proper channels whilst domiciled in their home state, and get a visa before traveling here, or the ones who decided to try to illegally enter without a visa?


Refugees don't need a visa to claim asylum....


So, do you say that by paying a people smuggler to bring them here on a boat, and claim asylum, they are entitled to advance their visa application up the queue in front of other applicants?

There are some people in a refugee camp adjacent to the Sudan who might disagree.


Where did I say that exactly?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 6:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16725
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
Farva wrote:
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Farva wrote:
I think a large influx of skilled people from Hong Kong could do wonders for our economy.

However, we have a humanitarian influx of around 10k a year, so they couldnt cover that spot - they are certainly not in the same boat as many others seeking asylum. If we are suggesting that they come under that intake it would be as hair brained as Peter Dutton's idea of using that to get white farmers over from South Africa.

However, bring them in under either a special influx or under the skilled workers section and it works a treat.


In 2019 we had a net migration of around 300K. This year that's expected to be closer to zero, or even a negative net migration, as international students and workers have returned home and cannot return. So what that does mean is that next year we could potentially double our annual intake, and many of those could be highly skilled people fleeing HK.


Before or after the other refugees?


Dont use the refugee intake to cover this is the answer. That is completely separate. We arent all Peter Dutton.


I never said you were,

The media coverage and press releases are all about the humanitarian aspect Vs the evil CCP.

If that's the case, the refugees (yes Sluggy) should be processed first.

Any Humanitarian applications should be via Christmas Island as per the LNP methodology.


Sorry, that wasnt directed at you!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 6:41 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 16725
Location: STRAYA PLUM
Ellafan wrote:
Pat the Ex Mat wrote:
Ellafan wrote:
Which ones are queue jumping though? - the ones who make an application through proper channels whilst domiciled in their home state, and get a visa before traveling here, or the ones who decided to try to illegally enter without a visa?


Refugees don't need a visa to claim asylum....


So, do you say that by paying a people smuggler to bring them here on a boat, and claim asylum, they are entitled to advance their visa application up the queue in front of other applicants?

There are some people in a refugee camp adjacent to the Sudan who might disagree.


Who on earth bought people smugglers in to this?
Are people sitting in refugee camps adjacent to the Sudan not refugees who are looking to claim asylum?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jul 08, 2020 7:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2018 4:15 am
Posts: 600
there is absolutely no valid humanitarium basis for this - zero. otherwise you would have to say that all Chinese citizens are eligible.

selling visas and citizenship to the highest bidders is an insult to the cultural identity of a country. but no surprise for australia.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 58 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: bimboman, DOB, iarmhiman, Insane_Homer, jdogscoop, Jensrsa, Leinsterman, Mick Mannock, Morgan14, New guy, PornDog, rett, RodneyRegis, SaintK, towny, Tussock, ZappaMan and 67 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group