They were all in the same boat

[noseall]

They only let people in who have a considerable amount of money to spend.

Is that because the cost of living over there is so high?

Is that the reason people choose to leave there?

 

[noseall]

The Aussie gov really protect their own. Have a google. It does make sense if you care about your country.

Yes, aren't the average Aussies a lucky bunch. The fourth most expensive place to live IN THE WORLD.

Yes I'm pretty sure us Brits would love to boot out all the cheap labour so that we can usurp the Aussies and be a place above them.

Get real! Australia my erse!

 

[JBR]

Yes and the aussies don't get branded right wing ******* for wanting to protect their country.

My mate went out there about 15 years ago. He's a qualified electrician but that didn't get him easy passage.
A lot of hoops to jump through. The process lasted a number of years.
Though he's married and settled out there now.

A number of years ago my first wife and I considered emigrating to Australia. Some friends of ours had gone there a year or so before and they have been very happy indeed ever since. At the time, we would both probably have been acceptable for immigration.
The only thing that put us off slightly was the fact that Australia (and another attractive place, New Zealand) are a world away (literally) from this country where most of our friends and relatives live and also from other European countries where we both like to visit on holiday. (Yes, you see, I am not anti-Europe, just anti-EU!)

I sometimes wonder whether, if conditions in this country become less attractive to the more productive members of society, they may eventually emigrate in droves to countries like Australia. Obviously, the effects that would have on the UK are quite interesting to think about.

 

[joe-90]

I lived in Oz for nearly twenty years. Still got two brothers there, mum and dad both died there.

 

[RNReindeer]

There's a big difference between migrants who have no skills to offer the UK (and are allowed here legally because they are European), and say doctors / nurses/ engineers etc. Those with nothing to offer this country would be best stopped at the border and turned straight around to whence they came from.

How would you means test and implement this strategy?

For starters, we should be looking at their qualifications and doing a thorough investigation/trace of those qualifications. (possibly even a skills test too) A basic numeracy and literacy test should be done (specially for doctors) (no good letting in those who can't even understand our language and more so if they are to be employed treating people on the NHS)

As Joe says. A similar way to the Australian system.

I think there's a bit of confusion going on here.
Jock and a couple of others are discussing planned, official, organised immigration based on the country's official system, pursued before departing the home country.
The topic is/was about people escaping from dire conditions and arriving (or not, as the case may be, sometimes) on some foreign shores.
The link that I provided was the Australian approach to boat people (refugees). They simply turn them around and dump them on some other country's shores, for someone else to sort out. Those people are pointedly refused consideration for migration to Australia even if it was found that they would have qualified anyway.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-32478378
The EU would have to come to some arrangement with a nearby island country to take all the refugees.
Which one comes to mind?

Just one of the reasons for wanting to migrate is shown in the recent report about the number of surgical specialists available in other countries, bearing in mind also that one of the reasons why richer western countries have high numbers is because the qualified specialists from the poorer countries migrate for better conditions, higher wages, etc., leaving the poorer countries even poorer :

Numbers of trained surgical specialists per 100,000 people
◾UK: 35
◾US: 36
◾Brazil 35
◾Japan 17
◾South Africa: 7
◾Bangladesh 1.7
◾Sierra Leone (before Ebola): 0.1

Source: The Lancet study
http://www.bbc.com/news/health-32452249

 

[Micilin]

A key part of Australia's strategy to reduce illegal immigration by boat is publicising their policy in the countries of origin (of such immigrants)

As I said before, there's a bit more to dealing with this than the extremes of 'let everyone in' and ' blow them out of the water'.

 

[Micilin]

It's all very well setting up committees and focus groups stuffed full of lefty, pseudo-intelligentsia - all wanting to 'feel the pain' of the poor, oppressed migrants and wondering whose navel to gaze into. These are the types who have their hands on the levers of power already - and a fine mess they're making. The problem is happening now, and without strong, unambiguous action, the problem will rapidly spiral. Once these immigrants are in and have hoodwinked these people, and probably yourself, with their unending hard luck stories, we'll be packed like sardines together with the world's spongers and parasites.

Time for a bit of 'shock and awe'. Katie Hopkins wasn't far off with talk of gunboats. What a woman! She floats my boat - but definitely not one full of migrants.

So for you , it's either let them all in or blow them out of the water.

So for you, it's form a committee or think about forming a committee?

And you think that a 'blow them out of the water' policy will be initiated without a 'committee' ?

I'm talking about the real world politics , not the bar room .

Dear me......

 

[noseall]

Geographically speaking - it is pointless to compare the UK to Australia in terms of migrant influx.

Financially speaking - why would you want to even go there? If it is heat you want you can go to Spain and they speak better English.

 

[longdogs]

The Aussies stand up for themselves and their country. I remember a few years back when a boat load of refugees tried to hold Australia to ransom by threatening to throw their children overboard if they were not taken in. Australia's reply was 'Do it then.' Obviously they didn't.

Can you imagine if that happened here. The government departments would be falling over themselves to get them into Britain.

 

[RNReindeer]

The Aussies stand up for themselves and their country. I remember a few years back when a boat load of refugees tried to hold Australia to ransom by threatening to throw their children overboard if they were not taken in. Australia's reply was 'Do it then.' Obviously they didn't.

Can you imagine if that happened here. The government departments would be falling over themselves to get them into Britain.

Oops, Squeaky, my turn to correct you, I believe.
See the danger of urban mythology, hearsay and half remembered incidents:

Two official inquiries found this week the accusations repeatedly made by Mr Howard and his defence and immigration ministers during campaigning for last year's general election were untrue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1822110.stm[/QUOTE]
and

An inquiry into allegations that asylum seekers trying to reach Australia had thrown their children overboard has found there was no evidence to support the claims.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1819900.stm[/QUOTE]

Perhaps there is a lesson to be leant though, from this Aussie incident:
Politicians will say anything that looks remotely popular, even though it's completely untrue, during election campaigns.
Does it ring a bell with Nige's supporters: foreigners dying from Aids clogging up the health system, or words to that effect.

 

[noseall]

One thing about the RWR, they are extremely gullible.

Squark, I think we've had this conversation about posting sensationalist lies. Do try harder.

 

[longdogs]

The Aussies stand up for themselves and their country. I remember a few years back when a boat load of refugees tried to hold Australia to ransom by threatening to throw their children overboard if they were not taken in. Australia's reply was 'Do it then.' Obviously they didn't.

Can you imagine if that happened here. The government departments would be falling over themselves to get them into Britain.

Oops, Squeaky, my turn to correct you, I believe.
See the danger of urban mythology, hearsay and half remembered incidents:

Two official inquiries found this week the accusations repeatedly made by Mr Howard and his defence and immigration ministers during campaigning for last year's general election were untrue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1822110.stm[/QUOTE]
and

An inquiry into allegations that asylum seekers trying to reach Australia had thrown their children overboard has found there was no evidence to support the claims.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1819900.stm[/QUOTE]

Perhaps there is a lesson to be leant though, from this Aussie incident:
Politicians will say anything that looks remotely popular, even though it's completely untrue, during election campaigns.
Does it ring a bell with Nige's supporters: foreigners dying from Aids clogging up the health system, or words to that effect.

Well if that's untrue then I apologise. I always believed that to be true because I had seen the item on the BBC news. I apologise for not researching the story but not for the idea.

 

[longdogs]

One thing about the RWR, they are extremely gullible.

Squark, I think we've had this conversation about posting sensationalist lies. Do try harder.

I thought you might be back in the box along with Orville.

sssquelch!

 

[RNReindeer]

The Aussies stand up for themselves and their country. I remember a few years back when a boat load of refugees tried to hold Australia to ransom by threatening to throw their children overboard if they were not taken in. Australia's reply was 'Do it then.' Obviously they didn't.

Can you imagine if that happened here. The government departments would be falling over themselves to get them into Britain.

Oops, Squeaky, my turn to correct you, I believe.
See the danger of urban mythology, hearsay and half remembered incidents:

Two official inquiries found this week the accusations repeatedly made by Mr Howard and his defence and immigration ministers during campaigning for last year's general election were untrue.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1822110.stm[/QUOTE]
and

An inquiry into allegations that asylum seekers trying to reach Australia had thrown their children overboard has found there was no evidence to support the claims.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1819900.stm[/QUOTE]

Perhaps there is a lesson to be leant though, from this Aussie incident:
Politicians will say anything that looks remotely popular, even though it's completely untrue, during election campaigns.
Does it ring a bell with Nige's supporters: foreigners dying from Aids clogging up the health system, or words to that effect.

Well if that's untrue then I apologise. I always believed that to be true because I had seen the item on the BBC news. I apologise for not researching the story but not for the idea.

That was exactly what Mr Howard said: "I believed it to be true at the time!"

Mind you, relating back to noseall's comment, Mr Howard did go on to win that election. Does that say anything about RWRs and being gullible?

 

[longdogs]

ALL voters are gullible that's why they have an election campaign. Do you really believe what the Labour party spout? Do you believe what Russell Brand (The £9M socialist) says?

So, no! I don't believe that anyone who has right-of-centre views is any less or any more gullible than anyone else.

I did some work for a customer yesterday. He and his family moved here from Bangladesh about 20 years ago. He runs a successful business and pays his way in society. He is going to vote UKIP. As one of the more intelligent, he can see that there are too many people coming to this country. I don't see him as particularly gullible, in fact due to the fact that he is an Asian living in this country, he must have thought about it long and hard before coming to his decision.

Does that make him a racist?