October 23, 2009

Let Them In

Australia urged to take more refugees
Sustainable Population Australia (SPA) national president Sandra Kanck said Australia could double the number of refugees it accepted provided it cut as many, or more, entrants through the skilled migration program.

"We have no moral obligation to the people coming here under the skilled migration program - they are not fleeing from war-torn states," Ms Kanck, a former Australian Democrats state MP, said.

"They are taking places we could make available to real refugees."

Ms Kanck said Australia could provide the necessary training to produce its own skilled workforce and did not need to poach from other countries.

She also suggested ditching the federal government's baby bonus to use the funding for training programs.


1 comment:

Bukko_in_Australia said...

Short article there. I clicked the link because I thought there would be more, but no. Are YOU really for letting more boat people in?

Odd to see an enviro-type arguing for MORE immigration. Seems it's based on moral grounds -- unfair to let the privileged in whilst keeping out the less-fortunate.

I thought the Green position (not that Kanck is of that party) was to limit population growth. There's been another flurry of news stories this week about "Gee whiz, Australia's population is going to hit 35 million!" The Kruddster says that's a good thing, and the Libs can't bring themselves to say it's not -- bigger is ALWAYS better, eh? -- so they just whinge about not having enough trains and land released for new suburbs.

How about finding ways to get population down to 20 million? I'd rather have 20 million people sharing the resources of a drying land mass, with each of them having a bigger piece of the pie so they'd be fat and happy.

Scrapping the baby bonus is a good start. So is training more Aussies to be smarter and more productive. That way, they'd need fewer imports like me, and those Kiwis I worked with. Not that there's anything wrong with them... Until they open their mouths, that is ;)

I'm watching the latest outbreak of alarm -- "More boats off Ashmore Reef! They're everywhere, they're everywhere!" -- with a jaundiced eye. It might be a sign that my heart is getting harder, but I can't agree with Kanck's position. I don't agree with keeping refugees locked up in desert camps for years, until they're sewing their lips shut and throwing themselves on razor wire. But neither do I think they should be allowed in simply because they've made it this far.

Especially the Sri Lankans. It's true that their country has been through some awful shit, and they have suffered. But so have many. And Australia didn't have anything to do with that one. I can see that this country has some moral responsibility to take Iraqis and Afghans, and before them, Vietnamese. You helped make the mess; now help your victims.

My point is that life is unfair, and some of the people who have paid so much and risked their lives to get close to Oz are going to be screwed if they're turfed back to where they came from. (Done quickly, after good feeding, rehydration and proper treatment, of course.) I don't want to come off as Wilson Fuckey-head, but there's reasons for having borders.

You've probably heard all variations of the points I'm making here, because you've been watching the debate all your life. It's not my position to say, and after Nov. 6, I won't even be here to say it. But I think Australia should be working on shrinking, both internally and limiting externals, including people just like myself. Not an Iron Sand Dune or anything, but there's gotta be some control.

Pages

Blog Archive