New Minister for Immigration

[yc1ten]

An interesting article from The Age.

 

This is a big mess that has been created by Evans an yet he is still defending it.:mad:

Turning off the tap

[Guest TheStig]

An interesting article from The Age.

 

This is a big mess that has been created by Evans an yet he is still defending it.:mad:

Turning off the tap

 

 

Thank you for that article. Well in his stubborn and muddle-headed mind, he still thinks changes he has did with immigration system was perfect and flawless. Though he tried to fix one issue; he created another 5 in the process. End of the day, he is someone who is so arrogant that he will probably would not admit he made a mistake even though he knows it; you just cannot reason with people like these.

[Guest Manj]

Thank you for that article. Well in his stubborn and muddle-headed mind, he still thinks changes he has did with immigration system was perfect and flawless. Though he tried to fix one issue; he created another 5 in the process. End of the day, he is someone who is so arrogant that he will probably would not admit he made a mistake even though he knows it; you just cannot reason with people like these.

 

Well said!!

[Guest Jamie Smith]

Oh dear me, the IRONY!

 

Evans - who dismantled the link between education and visas and slaughtered the student market - now has to face the music with very unhappy and underfunded universities who are facing a fees shortfall from reduced foreign student numbers!!!!!

 

MWAH HA HA HA HA HA .... (repeat, repeat...) :biglaugh: :biglaugh: :biggrin:

 

and :tongue:.

 

Kind of like the fox having to be nice to the recently armed chickens...

 

Watch for some interesting "justification" and finger pointing.

[Guest Tanner]

There are two sides of the story.

 

Of course universities will cry foul, who wouldn't - when they lose $$$. However, many in Australia dodn't agree with using PR to lure students.

 

Many see that education and immigration should be separated. Education should be sold on its merit. Immigration should serve the current needs of Australia. Many saw the previous situation unsustainable. Many saw opportunistic landlords around unis preying upon doe-eyed international students and irresponsibly driving up property prices. (This I know personally, a friend rented an older ONE bedroom 1970s FLAT to a singaporean student for $535 pw. I asked why did you do that, he said because he can!) Many also find shrewd operations of some opportunistic education/migration agents distasteful, you know who you are.

 

Many are also happy to see this change and see universities sustainably and properly funded, not by sucking thousands from poor students from developing countries in exchange of PRs. They want to see money wasted elsewhere consistently injected into education, without having to rely on fluctuating "markets".

 

I'm not setting myself to be a wowser. I just like balanced arguments. Obviously you guys already mentioned the one side of the story. I'm just mentioning the other.

 

There will be some wielding abuse at me because they simply don't like hearing about the other side of the story.

[Guest gryhawk]

Been lurkin' for ages. Then BAM! statement hits me like a ton of self-important aggrandizing. Couldn't hold it back.

 

Calmed somewhat. Realise constructive reasoning needed. Chill.

 

Back to lurkin'.

[Guest Jamie Smith]

There are two sides of the story.

 

Of course universities will cry foul, who wouldn't - when they lose $$$. However, many in Australia dodn't agree with using PR to lure students.

 

Not so many. I think many poeople accept Governments always underfund education, health etc and dislike it, but they accept universites CAN raise funds from overseas students and probably should.

 

Many see that education and immigration should be separated.

Many more would agree that students see what the country can offer and might like to move here. Having paid thousands for the edcuation there should be some linkage to encourage these skilled and educated future migrants. Not a rortable linkage like the VET colleges, but a formal one.

 

The Government realises that someone who lives in Aus for a few years would settle well if they stayed, more so than a new migrant who in many cases has never visited here.

 

So the Government would accept the linkage should exist if they were honest and not so driven by polls.

 

Watch this space I think we'll see Evans recreate some sort of link, and deny it is a reversal of his earlier position. If he does that, then my statement about Government accepting the linkage would be true.

 

Education should be sold on its merit. Immigration should serve the current needs of Australia.

The two are linked.

 

Don't forget some students are the scouting party and perhaps the access route for later family migration. And why not send a family member to do this. They will assist with family settlement.

 

Many saw the previous situation unsustainable. Many saw opportunistic landlords around unis preying upon doe-eyed international students and irresponsibly driving up property prices. (This I know personally, a friend rented an older ONE bedroom 1970s FLAT to a singaporean student for $535 pw. I asked why did you do that, he said because he can!).

Did you argue against it or tacitly support it?

 

Many are also happy to see this change and see universities sustainably and properly funded.

Never going to happen.

[Guest Tanner]

Hey Jamie,

 

If "not so many" Australians think like I mentioned, how could your aforementioned polls indicated otherwise:

 

"the Government would accept the linkage should exist if they were honest and not so driven by polls."

We all know how reactionary the Labor government is to polls. I believe in my submission, that "many" was the case. Apart from polls, I live here and I am certainly not deaf nor blind.

 

"Don't forget some students are the scouting party and perhaps the access route for later family migration. And why not send a family member to do this. They will assist with family settlement."

This is exactly what MANY Australians are against, please don't tell me you have never heard of this during this election campaign of "who cuts migration the most", "sustainable Australia not Big Australia".

 

I am against those opportunists crying out because they can now no longer prey upon international students/migrants, bad landlords included.

[Guest Jamie Smith]

Many is not all.

 

It needs to be a balanced argument, aye. The media do not help in any way.

 

Those who think migration and education are not linked just do not understand the global market. Including the media and the politicians.

 

And your "friend" who likes to rip off students/migrants? What said you in protest? :jimlad:

 

Nothing....?

 

Do you realise that your friend is adding to the anti migration sentiment by ripping off "exploitable" students, as some think we should leave the migrants at home (rather than allow them to help others "to get rich").

 

Why don't you talk to your friend and encourage him/her to drop the rent, to be fair to the migrant and reduce the opportunity for some to say this is why migration should be "more strictly controlled" a.k.a. "reduced".

[Guest Tanner]

Many is not all.

- Not ALL (these things will never be 'all'), but MANY enough to tell the government to do something through polls/elections, certainly NOT on the minority side of the scale.

 

And your "friend" who likes to rip off students/migrants? What said you in protest? :jimlad:

 

Nothing....?

 

Why don't you talk to your friend and encourage him/her to drop the rent, to be fair to the migrant and reduce the opportunity for some to say this is why migration should be "more strictly controlled" a.k.a. "reduced".

 

I did voiced my opinion that it was "a total rip off" and totally disagreed with what he did. His replied was "Well, because I can". And it's his property.

[Guest Tanner]

some think we should leave the migrants at home (rather than allow them to help others "to get rich"

 

Could it be:

"Let's leave some migrants (whose nett yield is less in the favour of Australia than others) at home if they are to come here, be exploited by opportunists, fuel unsustanable education recruitment practices and further fuel an unsustainable polulation growth rate of Australia."

 

(I don't think we should close the country or stopped it all like some Australians do!, quite the opposite!! Can't say often enough how much I'm passionate about migration. But there's a distinction between what is unsustainable and what is sustainable. I believe the previous situation of "PR factories" was unsustainable and we have to drag it back to the right balance.)

[George Lombard]

There is a long history of conflict between education institutions and the Department of Immigration, and Senator Evans will probably end up being on the side of the Vice-Chancellors when he sees how the funding issues play out, but for the moment it's worth remembering that at the time of the Tiananmen Square suppression on 4 June 1989 and afterwards there were as many as 40,000 Chinese citizen students of English in Australia and most of those people stayed through a combination of refugee applications and various amnesty arrangements.

 

At the moment if there are 500,000 overseas students and graduates in Australia, it's a safe bet that 90% of them come from countries with a lower standard of living than Australia and that they might be tempted to stay if circumstances were to permit that. You have the backlog of graduates waiting for their GSM visas, and the frontlog of students planning to apply for GSM, and a large number of people in the middle who are studying cheaper courses which might lead to permanent visas on the basis of nothing more than blind hope.

 

Continuing the student visa education windfall might involve the eventual cost to the community of settling large numbers of the current GSM frontlog and backlog, and of course the steadily growing industry of pointless courses for those in the middle from where I'm sure that a lot of overseas students just vanish, at least that would be the angle of the fear card which is being played by DIAC on both Evans and Bowen.

 

Who's likely to blink first? Fear or greed, which is the stronger?

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

[Guest Tanner]

Your figures clearly showed how unsustainable it had been. Greed needs to stop. The stance I support is let's continue the glory of international education and immigration, but back down to a sustainable level. The cutback was very much needed.

 

And that will ease exploitation of students face as well. (So many stories of students working for almost nothing because of high competition between them, if they don't do it someone else will, and they end up with no job! And then high rent etc. as previously discussed.)

[dasalcedo]

Your figures clearly showed how unsustainable it had been. Greed needs to stop. The stance I support is let's continue the glory of international education and immigration, but back down to a sustainable level. The cutback was very much needed.

 

And that will ease exploitation of students face as well. (So many stories of students working for almost nothing because of high competition between them, if they don't do it someone else will, and they end up with no job! And then high rent etc. as previously discussed.)

 

Excuse me Tanner, what is a "sustainable level" for you? I just ask because I'm sick of listen to Julia Gillard talking about "sustainable population" all the time without explaining what does sustainable population mean in fact. It sounds more bullsh... than anything else.

 

Cheers

[Guest Jamie Smith]

Greed needs to stop.

What, you're going back to friend to ask him to drop the rent? Otherwise, who will?

 

So many stories of students working for almost nothing because of high competition between them, if they don't do it someone else will, and they end up with no job!

That's not the case.

 

They work for zip because someone (Evans) said they needed to show work experience to get the visa. Some even pay the employer for the work experience! (Greedy employer b*st*rds, as though free workers were not enough already).

 

The visa is so important to families that have mortgaged their own future to get one child into a better country, so of course the student "honours the family commitment" and does what they must to protect their ability to get the visa.

 

Evans created the opportunity for employers to exploit these students, and the students see the low pay or free work as the means to an end.

 

Yet few employers would normally ever hire a young person just to give them a start including Australian youth, let alone foreigners and people who have studied things they have no intention, or ability, to continue to do the work.

 

The cutback will NOT ease the exploitation. It will only reduce the numbers that are willing to be exploited.

 

What would ease the exploitation is for the Minister to reform the visa requirements expeically in the area of work experience, employer contractual performance and MORE SITE AUDITS. As it stands DIAC only audit perhaps 5%. That's a risk many greedy employers would accept.

 

More people need to know more about the workings of market rather than just the numbers ;-).

[Guest Tanner]

Excuse me Tanner, what is a "sustainable level" for you? I just ask because I'm sick of listen to Julia Gillard talking about "sustainable population" all the time without explaining what does sustainable population mean in fact. It sounds more bullsh... than anything else.

 

Cheers

 

Hey dasalcedo,

 

Environmental scientists proposed 10 millions for Australia as an optimum carrying capacity, factoring in many important issues such as water, usable land (the massive part of the continent is desert).

 

I don't agree with having to stick to that 'optimum' figure, I think in this day and age we can carry more than that, and we have carried more than that.

 

Many of scientists, sociologists, planners etc., however, came out loud during Rudd's announcement that 35 million is not a sustainable figure looking at how various things are.

 

Therefore, my answer, based on these experts' opinion, would fall somewhere between 10 and 35. Perhaps not far for from current population. Unless further researches suggest otherwise. (I guess it's why a minister of sustainable population was established.)

 

It is an ongoing issue, I am open and happy to hear what experts say, this is what I say from current situation.

 

Countries have seen population levels dropped too (e.g. Ireland), and in several cases, it's not all that bad as 'economists' or those whose main focus is only 'money' would like to project.

[Guest Jamie Smith]

Therefore, my answer, based on these experts' opinion, would fall somewhere between 10 and 35

 

Ok let's make it 34, that should be acceptable???? :err:

[dasalcedo]

Ok let's make it 34, that should be acceptable???? :err:

 

:biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh::biglaugh:

 

It would be more credible if you say something like "between 30 and 35 million" lol mate. :biglaugh:

 

Cheers

[yc1ten]

It is going down....down...and down!

 

Colleges face crisis as Chinese stop enrolling | The Australian

[Guest Gollywobbler]

It is going down....down...and down!

 

Colleges face crisis as Chinese stop enrolling | The Australian

 

Hi yc1ten

 

Frankly, my own view is that the Australian Government - led by Rudd and Evans between them - managed to bungle the whole subject of international education leading to skilled immigration so badly that Australia deserves to lose out over its foreign competitors.

 

If that puts a hundred thousand Aussies out of work, their own Government caused it and they voted for that Government in the first place.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Jamie Smith]

That's a bit harsh on the 50% who DIDN"T vote for the troublemakers.