Last edited by HollyGolightly81; 06-09-2015 at 18:22.
It is also 2015, a very different world from when our parents and grandparents immigrated. Anyway im not interested in arguing, im not on either side. As i said i can just see both points of view.
Heplus me, I get exactly what you are saying. Very similar to my earlier post, refugees REQUIRE health care, housing,transport, education or retraining,english classes, often social support and counselling services, welfare to survivie until such time that they are able to get a job. No one is suggesting that refugees are 'dole bludgers',just that it is unrealistic and unfair to dump someone in the middle of a new country with a language and culture completely different from their own, & not expect that they will require assistance. Some will get by on their own. Most will not. We need to be able to provide those resources for refugees, otherwise they will starve or get sick or be homeless. This means we need to be willing to pay more for our health care to cover the cost of others. We need to have FTB cuts so we can share the 'pool' of resources. Im happy to share,but I would bet my bottom dollar that the majority will complain at the first FTB cut. There comes a point where refugees are a 'financially contributing' member of society - but it is totally unfair to expect this on arrival. It takes an initial cost outlay that we have to be willing to pay.
My parents and grandparents were immigrants - they did not speak a word of english. Yes, this was the 70's but you may be surprised at the resources available. You could work with limited to no english. And there are plenty of communities where any refugees can seek help and support. I wonder what ideas anyone has at to what we (as a nation) can/should do if we cannot or will not take refugees? I ask because I honestly don't know. Money can be given but for what? Where do the people stay?
Yes the world is different a different place. We have many more resources and sources of education available to us nowadays, also now incredibly easy to access.
Australia is wasting millions on it's current policy. That is where a lot money could/would come from.
Last edited by HollyGolightly81; 06-09-2015 at 19:09.
Speaking just from an economic point of view; whether low skilled or high, documented or undocumented, immigrants are good for a country. They create jobs and boost the economy.
Yes taking in refugees takes resources and committed investment from public and private enterprise, I don't think there is any argument there.
Are people suggesting we don't have the resources to support this?
I'm not saying skills should be used as a basis for determining acceptance of refugees - not at all. Just that if Australia ends up taking in a large number of unskilled asylum seekers we will likely need to have more support mechanisms in place.
Last edited by VicPark; 06-09-2015 at 20:25.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!