Australia's Leftist government opens the floodgates for illegals
AUSTRALIA will quadruple the number of asylum seekers released from detention to live in the community, prompting accusations the Gillard Government has quietly dismantled mandatory detention.
The dramatic increase allowing 400 asylum seekers a month to be released on bridging visas to live and work or claim welfare payments before their claims are finalised prompted Coalition warnings yesterday of a "let them in and let them out" policy.
But it will be welcomed by the Greens, who have long called for the dismantling of the inhumane detention of asylum seekers.
Asylum seekers had previously remained in detention until their claims for refugee status were finalised, some after years, and were then released into the community or deported.
The forecast of 400 asylum seekers a month to be released into the community is the same number the department expects to arrive by boat every month over the next year.
Immigration Minister Chris Bowen flagged the new policy in November, predicting 100 asylum seekers a month would be released.
"The rate at which we are currently processing people would see us releasing about 400 people a month on bridging visas," deputy secretary John Moorhouse said.
Immigration secretary Andrew Metcalfe added in evidence to a parliamentary hearing that on current boat arrival, "we believe we will probably get up to that figure".
Opposition immigration spokesman Scott Morrison ridiculed Minister Bowen's earlier pledge that the policy of mandatory detention was "rock solid". "Labor's policy for illegal boat arrivals has now been exposed as simply being let them in and let them out," Mr Morrison said.
"The revelation the number of bridging visas will rise to four times the level indicated by the Minister when he announced the scheme just three months ago shows just how far the Labor Government has embraced the Greens policy of onshore release.
"The big winners are people smugglers. The Government's own figures reveal the average price paid on these boats is $10,000 a person."
But the Government expects to rein in a budget blowout sparked by rising arrivals under the policy. That is because it is cheaper to allow asylum seekers to live and work in the community or claim welfare payments than it is to house them in remote detention centres.
SOURCE
New Zealand prefers wealthy immigrants
A Cabinet paper shows the Government is planning to tighten up on family members seeking New Zealand residency while giving preference to better-off immigrants.
The draft paper leaked to the Labour Party shows Immigration New Zealand is planning to create a two-tier system where applications from parents sponsored by their higher income children, or those who bring a guaranteed income or funds, would be processed faster than other applications.
The system would also be tightened for those in the second tier for wealthier immigrants so that only those with no adult children living in their home country would be eligible.
Sponsors would be required to support immigrating parents for a period of 10 years, up from five, and parents would no longer be able to bring dependent children.
Parents with poor English would also need to "pre-purchase tuition".
The sibling and adult child immigration category would be removed to reduce the number of unskilled migrants who find it more difficult to get jobs and are more likely to get benefit payments.
Samoan immigrants would also be affected with the introduction of new minimum income levels.
Immigration Minister Nathan Guy said the policy was aimed at attracting migrants with the right skills and wealth to help grow New Zealand's economy. "That is why we want new migrants to be self-sufficient and be able to contribute to New Zealand, rather than going straight onto a benefit."
However Labour's immigration spokeswoman Darien Fenton said New Zealand was becoming a country were only the rich were welcome. "We roll out the red carpet for them, yet we make it near impossible for good, less well-off families."
The paper was prepared for the first 100 days of the new government but the changes were omitted in a briefing to incoming minister Nathan Guy which was publicly released last month.
"They will come as a shock to the thousands of people in New Zealand looking to reunite their families, especially given the special treatment handed out to millionaires such as Kim Dotcom," Fenton said.
SOURCE
Background
Postings from Brisbane, Australia by John Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.) -- former member of the Australia-Soviet Friendship Society, former anarcho-capitalist and former member of the British Conservative party.
Why is "La Raza" the one Spanish term that is NEVER translated in the American mass media? Because translating it would make it a lot less respectable. It means "THE RACE" -- The mixed Hispanic "race" of Mexico. Racism is fine South of the Rio Grande only, apparently.
The "line" of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.
2). Selectivity should be based on "the content of a man's character, not on the color of his skin", as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many "refugees" would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual's likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.
3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.
4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live -- Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the "refugee" category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted -- for instance a higher level of education or a business background.
5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. "Who will pick our crops?" (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: Before the pandemic, you usually COULD buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.
6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the "open door" policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.
I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com -- or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.
No comments:
Post a Comment