Thread:
Thread:
Wait a second.
My understanding is that there are only about 1,000 refugees being imprisoned offshore.
Which means that for the same amount of money, they could give each refugee about $160,000 per year to sustain themselves. Which, I’d have to think, would be well more than enough to survive on.
I can’t see what you’d call that other than “burning money to hurt refugees.”
Stop with the math!
And besides, if you gave it to them, they’d just spend it on shelter and food and possibly building a respectable life and community.
For FSM’s sake, that sounds like a brilliant idea.
Average salary for Australia looks to be $82000, but that’s a wide range.
So how about give the families $60K for a couple of years. Use the remainder for some counselors and the like to help them find employment and help transitioning to their new home land.
SMDH
Oh you. Such economic sense.
No, the government would much rather demonise people attempting to seek asylum, imprison them, severely restrict medical and health-care access, shackle them if they are granted treatment, often fob them off to other countries if they are given asylum. And if they do make it off Nauru to some sort of Australian residency, prevent them from accessing federal welfare/benefits for a minimum of two years (it may have gone up to five years, I’m not sure.)
And in the name of what? “Protecting Australian borders” and being ‘fiscally responsible’.
Fuckers. Without a conscience or compassion.
Why does the footballer get to be a refugee but not Behrouz Boochani?