Australia to Send Refugees to Papua New Guinea

[mickjn]

I would love to know how the young kids turned out from when the boats started arriving in 89.I guess there would be a few that turned out to be crims etc hard to arrived in a new country etc.But I wonder if there was a genius amongst them,doctor etc that was a benefit to the Australian people.My guess is there has been more that one.I am not saying stop or not stop the boats it is just something I have wondered about.

[samran]

Dave48. Nats were revolting over TPV's as they wanted refugee's to settle in the countryside. And that was the conservative side of politics. Plenty of public pressure, one of the key reasons Maxine McKew managed to knock off Howard in his own seat.

All this stuff was well documented.

<as they wanted refugee's to settle in the countryside>

Good luck with that! It wouldn't take long before they were complaining that it violated their "rights" and were allowed to move into the city ghettos where they can pretend that they are still in their own country, and don't have to assimilate.

I would actually support that policy if it was a case of live in the outback or go home. We'd soon see how many were economic migrants vs real refugees.

Yup, send those rich reffo bastards into the bush - if they can take care if themselves they can stay - in the bush.

Ah, Thaibeachlovers - were your ancestors told where they could and could not stay when they arrived on our sunny shores . . . surely they were sent to live in the Olgas or in Kakadu somewhere, right ?

As far back as I can tell, my ancestors migrated legally, acording to the laws that existed at that time.

[Will27]

Dave48. Nats were revolting over TPV's as they wanted refugee's to settle in the countryside. And that was the conservative side of politics. Plenty of public pressure, one of the key reasons Maxine McKew managed to knock off Howard in his own seat.

All this stuff was well documented.

<as they wanted refugee's to settle in the countryside>

Good luck with that! It wouldn't take long before they were complaining that it violated their "rights" and were allowed to move into the city ghettos where they can pretend that they are still in their own country, and don't have to assimilate.

I would actually support that policy if it was a case of live in the outback or go home. We'd soon see how many were economic migrants vs real refugees.

Geez it must be miserable going through life as a cynic.

Look up how Sheparton has had a massive influx of refugees who have moved go live there, rejuvenating the area.

And I know you hate the ABC, but if you can bring yourself to read this, you might learn a thing or two.

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/stories/s795214.htm

Interesting read. So they sorted 90 ?refugees ( the thing I don't understand about modern life in the west, is that they can find work for refugees, but allow citizens to collect the dole and sit on their butt- no wonder the western world is massively in debt ), but given that the typical ABC audience wants to take all 70 million refugees into Oz, can they find work for them too?

Here's an idea; let all the refugees into Oz, and allow all the Australian citizens go on a permanent paid holiday- problem sorted .

If I'm cynical, it's because the managers of all my jobs have always given me, just a working stiff, the shaft.

DIAC, did a survey of 8500 people accepted under the humanitarian program a few years ago.

Not surprisingly, the vast majority of boat arrivals were from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Sri Lanka.

Some interesting results though. Just 9 per cent of Afghan adults had a job and 94 per cent were receiving benefits.

The same story among Iranian adults, just 12 per cent of whom work.

Also, 40 per cent of the refugees surveyed said they were getting medical treatment.

Even after five years here, most refugees had poor or no English.

I've got no problem with the government looking after refugee's as such, but just because I don't agree with an "open door"

policy, it doesn't mean I am uncompassionate, a bogan, feeble minded or a racist, as often get's insinuated here.

It has cost us billions, was getting out of control and had to be reigned in.

I also see that the Looney from the Greens Christine Milne, has blamed Abbott for the typhoon in the Phillipines,

calling him "Typhoon Tony". If that's the best the Greens have, no wonder they're in trouble.

BTW, I don't have a link for the survey but it's out there somewhere.

[samran]

probably this one? Not read it, a bit flat out.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/settlement-outcomes-new-arrivals.pdf

[BookMan]

DIAC, did a survey of 8500 people accepted under the humanitarian program a few years ago.

Not surprisingly, the vast majority of boat arrivals were from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Sri Lanka.

Some interesting results though. Just 9 per cent of Afghan adults had a job and 94 per cent were receiving benefits.

The same story among Iranian adults, just 12 per cent of whom work.

Also, 40 per cent of the refugees surveyed said they were getting medical treatment.

Even after five years here, most refugees had poor or no English.

I've got no problem with the government looking after refugee's as such, but just because I don't agree with an "open door"

policy, it doesn't mean I am uncompassionate, a bogan, feeble minded or a racist, as often get's insinuated here.

It has cost us billions, was getting out of control and had to be reigned in.

I also see that the Looney from the Greens Christine Milne, has blamed Abbott for the typhoon in the Phillipines,

calling him "Typhoon Tony". If that's the best the Greens have, no wonder they're in trouble.

BTW, I don't have a link for the survey but it's out there somewhere.

Will27, with respect, you might be cherry picking some stats to bolster your point of view. The report is 100 pages long.

In less than one 5 minutes of reading I found these facts.

Language

Humanitarian migrants are split fairly evenly on speaking/writing/reading English very well or

well, compared with not well or not at all. A large majority (72%) have studied or are studying

English in Australia.

• (English skills are roughly 50% well/very well)
• While unemployment is higher for humanitarian migrants they are more likely to be looking at further education.

Employment and income

While Humanitarian entrants are less likely to be working compared with other streams, they are

far more likely to be studying full-time, studying and working or studying and looking after their

families. Given that we are exploring only the first five years of settlement in this study, this is

not a surprising result as many Humanitarian entrants are strongly focused on creating a new life,

and studying for a qualification is an important step in this journey. As outlined in chart 11

earlier, after 4 years living in Australia, around 40% of Humanitarian entrants have a job of some type.

[Scott]

I would guess that refugees in the US and in Australia are rather similar and there have been a lot of studies done on how they fare. The statistics cited for Australia in the above post seem to be out of line, in my experience. A lot of refugees do OK, if I recall, they don't tend to exceptionally well, but most avoid having major issues. It is their children who generally do very, well and for whom the refugee experience is quite positive. They are also the ones that benefit the country the most.

I haven't worked in Refugee services for quite some time, though.

[Will27]

DIAC, did a survey of 8500 people accepted under the humanitarian program a few years ago.

Not surprisingly, the vast majority of boat arrivals were from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Sri Lanka.

Some interesting results though. Just 9 per cent of Afghan adults had a job and 94 per cent were receiving benefits.

The same story among Iranian adults, just 12 per cent of whom work.

Also, 40 per cent of the refugees surveyed said they were getting medical treatment.

Even after five years here, most refugees had poor or no English.

I've got no problem with the government looking after refugee's as such, but just because I don't agree with an "open door"

policy, it doesn't mean I am uncompassionate, a bogan, feeble minded or a racist, as often get's insinuated here.

It has cost us billions, was getting out of control and had to be reigned in.

I also see that the Looney from the Greens Christine Milne, has blamed Abbott for the typhoon in the Phillipines,

calling him "Typhoon Tony". If that's the best the Greens have, no wonder they're in trouble.

BTW, I don't have a link for the survey but it's out there somewhere.

Will27, with respect, you might be cherry picking some stats to bolster your point of view. The report is 100 pages long.

In less than one 5 minutes of reading I found these facts.

Language

Humanitarian migrants are split fairly evenly on speaking/writing/reading English very well or

well, compared with not well or not at all. A large majority (72%) have studied or are studying

English in Australia.

• (English skills are roughly 50% well/very well)
• While unemployment is higher for humanitarian migrants they are more likely to be looking at further education.

Employment and income

While Humanitarian entrants are less likely to be working compared with other streams, they are

far more likely to be studying full-time, studying and working or studying and looking after their

families. Given that we are exploring only the first five years of settlement in this study, this is

not a surprising result as many Humanitarian entrants are strongly focused on creating a new life,

and studying for a qualification is an important step in this journey. As outlined in chart 11

earlier, after 4 years living in Australia, around 40% of Humanitarian entrants have a job of some type.

That may be so, but they're still the facts, just like the ones you provided are. You could go through the

whole report and pick out ones that tend to support your point of view. As we know, stats can tell you anything.

It's no different to others giving links to read that are from refugee advocates.

Of course you're getting a slanted opinon.

I know there's a few radical opinions out there which I don't necessarily agree with, but, I was just getting a little

fed up with the continued barrages of people who don't agree with the open door policy, getting put under the

umbrella of "uniformed, bogans", etc etc.

Even the part that you have highlighted doesn't look that great. After 4 years approx 40 per cent have "some type of job".

To me, that's doesn't read so well.

Like I said previously, I have no problem with refugee's getting looked after, it's just the amount that I mainly object to.

There are some on here who have said they would like everyone who arrives here to be let in and settled, I'm just not one of them.

[BookMan]

That may be so, but they're still the facts, just like the ones you provided are. You could go through the

whole report and pick out ones that tend to support your point of view. As we know, stats can tell you anything.

It's no different to others giving links to read that are from refugee advocates.

Of course you're getting a slanted opinon.

I know there's a few radical opinions out there which I don't necessarily agree with, but, I was just getting a little

fed up with the continued barrages of people who don't agree with the open door policy, getting put under the

umbrella of "uniformed, bogans", etc etc.

Even the part that you have highlighted doesn't look that great. After 4 years approx 40 per cent have "some type of job".

To me, that's doesn't read so well.

Like I said previously, I have no problem with refugee's getting looked after, it's just the amount that I mainly object to.

There are some on here who have said they would like everyone who arrives here to be let in and settled, I'm just not one of them.

But Will27, you are not providing facts, that's the problem. For example you say:

"Even after five years here, most refugees had poor or no English".

That statement is not supported at all, in fact the survey shows 75% take or have taken English lessons with around 50% being good or very good at English.

You pick the lowest group by country of origin and only comment on their unemployment rate. You are giving an impression that there is 90% unemployment for all refugee arrivals. Not true again.

You say 95% (or similar) receive benefits. Probably 90% of Australian citizens get some form of benefit from centrelink in some way other.

These examples I give are representative of so many of the arguments I hear; they misuse data in support of an argument, they are sensationalist, and they are unbalanced.

[samran]

The highlighting of the lack of English as some sort of failure for me is a puzzling one.

Presumably many who decry the lack of English amongst migrants are bemoaning thye fact while they are typing on their keyboard in Thailand. Most of those would have rudimentary Thai, at best, and will never know any more.

The reason is simple, when you move to a new country you actually don't need to learn much of the local lingo to get by. That applies to the refugees in OZ as much as for the farangs who have made Thailand their home.

My Grandmother did the last 25 years of her life in OZ with barely a word of English. A legal migrant she lived a productive life, was well known around our local shops and helped our family tick over while my parents worked. She taught me a foreign language to boot and provided my family free child care till we were in our teens. But she never worked a day of paid employment.

So as will27 says, stats can be interpreted in any way you want. My bet is those who aren't working are nevertheless leading highly productive lives, just like my grandmother did.

As you all know, and regularly whine about here on Thai Visa, living in a new country is hard work.

[Scott]

Benefits for refugees can be misleading because they arrive with little or nothing. Almost all of them receive some sort of care and assistance. The question is for how long and how much assistance is given.

How long does it take Australia to process a refugee to the point where they can legally work in the country? I know most countries have to give you some type of residency before you are even allowed to work.

[simple1]

Benefits for refugees can be misleading because they arrive with little or nothing. Almost all of them receive some sort of care and assistance. The question is for how long and how much assistance is given.

How long does it take Australia to process a refugee to the point where they can legally work in the country? I know most countries have to give you some type of residency before you are even allowed to work.

Australia has a current intake program of 13,500 asylum seekers/refugees a year, all of whom have been vetted & would be provided government benefits and have no restriction on employment. Australian citizens who are unemployed have to comply with the Centrelink/Job Seeker conditions & those not complying can have their benefits restricted; I guess this applies to persons under the refugee intake program. 85% receive some form of government welfare benefits. However latest figures show 7.1 million Australian citizens are recipients of some type of government welfare payment.

Prior to the PNG policy that states boat arrivals will never be permitted entry to Australia, even if positively vetted, some asylum seekers/refugees, including children, were being held in Australian detention camps for years. Besides the ID issues some foreign governments refuse/delay cooperation with Australian authorities.

It is interesting to note from the report that Samran linked, of those arriving on humanitarian visas 17% have no education. New arrivals are provided 510 hours of English language training, but if you have no experience in school this this would be insufficient to create a founding in a new language. On the other side of the coin 35% of humanitarian visa arrivals (compared to 39% of the Australian population) have tech/Uni qualifications, but I would assume they would need to requalify to Australian standards.

30% of humanitarian visa arrivals are aged over 45 so would be difficult to obtain work, taking into account discrimination and ageism.

[Farma]

A small step in the right direction.

A Sri Lankan navy Lt Commander who had previously been involved in briefing Oz border protection and diplomats on on the fight against people smuggling has been arrested for allegedly people smuggling. Apparently he was heavily involved in Sri Lankas largest people smuggling ring.

Link to the story here http://www.news.com.au/world/breaking-news/bishop-welcomes-smuggler-arrest/story-e6frfkui-1226760424087

[Will27]

That may be so, but they're still the facts, just like the ones you provided are. You could go through the

whole report and pick out ones that tend to support your point of view. As we know, stats can tell you anything.

It's no different to others giving links to read that are from refugee advocates.

Of course you're getting a slanted opinon.

I know there's a few radical opinions out there which I don't necessarily agree with, but, I was just getting a little

fed up with the continued barrages of people who don't agree with the open door policy, getting put under the

umbrella of "uniformed, bogans", etc etc.

Even the part that you have highlighted doesn't look that great. After 4 years approx 40 per cent have "some type of job".

To me, that's doesn't read so well.

Like I said previously, I have no problem with refugee's getting looked after, it's just the amount that I mainly object to.

There are some on here who have said they would like everyone who arrives here to be let in and settled, I'm just not one of them.

But Will27, you are not providing facts, that's the problem. For example you say:

"Even after five years here, most refugees had poor or no English".

That statement is not supported at all, in fact the survey shows 75% take or have taken English lessons with around 50% being good or very good at English.

You pick the lowest group by country of origin and only comment on their unemployment rate. You are giving an impression that there is 90% unemployment for all refugee arrivals. Not true again.

You say 95% (or similar) receive benefits. Probably 90% of Australian citizens get some form of benefit from centrelink in some way other.

These examples I give are representative of so many of the arguments I hear; they misuse data in support of an argument, they are sensationalist, and they are unbalanced.

Well again, I have to disagree with you, they are the facts.

You said " survey shows 75% take or have taken English lessons with around 50% being good or very good at English".

The figures are that 51.2 have a "not well or not at all" proficiency. I said most, perhaps half would've been a better word.

Just because 75% take lessons does not mean they're proficient at it.

I don't see how stating that 95% of Afghans are on unemployment benefits is giving an impression that 90% of all refugees are on benefits. You said "not true again". I never said it in the first instance.

In fact, 85% of all entrants are on Centrelink benefits and were still on them after 5 years. The unemployment rates are extremely high, with only 9% of Afghans employed and 12% of Iraqi's employed.

The largest age demographic of arrivals from all countries is the 35 to 44 age group. Out of this group, over 65% are unemployed and 88% of the household receive benefits.

I don't agree with you that the data I've used has been misused, sensationalist or unbalanced. It's like you saying that probably 90% of Australian citizens get a Centrelink benefit I guess.

[BookMan]

That may be so, but they're still the facts, just like the ones you provided are. You could go through the

whole report and pick out ones that tend to support your point of view. As we know, stats can tell you anything.

It's no different to others giving links to read that are from refugee advocates.

Of course you're getting a slanted opinon.

I know there's a few radical opinions out there which I don't necessarily agree with, but, I was just getting a little

fed up with the continued barrages of people who don't agree with the open door policy, getting put under the

umbrella of "uniformed, bogans", etc etc.

Even the part that you have highlighted doesn't look that great. After 4 years approx 40 per cent have "some type of job".

To me, that's doesn't read so well.

Like I said previously, I have no problem with refugee's getting looked after, it's just the amount that I mainly object to.

There are some on here who have said they would like everyone who arrives here to be let in and settled, I'm just not one of them.

But Will27, you are not providing facts, that's the problem. For example you say:

"Even after five years here, most refugees had poor or no English".

That statement is not supported at all, in fact the survey shows 75% take or have taken English lessons with around 50% being good or very good at English.

You pick the lowest group by country of origin and only comment on their unemployment rate. You are giving an impression that there is 90% unemployment for all refugee arrivals. Not true again.

You say 95% (or similar) receive benefits. Probably 90% of Australian citizens get some form of benefit from centrelink in some way other.

These examples I give are representative of so many of the arguments I hear; they misuse data in support of an argument, they are sensationalist, and they are unbalanced.

Well again, I have to disagree with you, they are the facts.

You said " survey shows 75% take or have taken English lessons with around 50% being good or very good at English".

The figures are that 51.2 have a "not well or not at all" proficiency. I said most, perhaps half would've been a better word.

Just because 75% take lessons does not mean they're proficient at it.

I don't see how stating that 95% of Afghans are on unemployment benefits is giving an impression that 90% of all refugees are on benefits. You said "not true again". I never said it in the first instance.

In fact, 85% of all entrants are on Centrelink benefits and were still on them after 5 years. The unemployment rates are extremely high, with only 9% of Afghans employed and 12% of Iraqi's employed.

The largest age demographic of arrivals from all countries is the 35 to 44 age group. Out of this group, over 65% are unemployed and 88% of the household receive benefits.

I don't agree with you that the data I've used has been misused, sensationalist or unbalanced. It's like you saying that probably 90% of Australian citizens get a Centrelink benefit I guess.

IMO you are being disingenuous.

You mentioned the high rate of unemployment and you exaggerated the rate of English proficiency to give weight to your argument. You misused the data to support your views by offering an unfair balance.

My last sentence was not aimed as a personal critique of yourself, but a general observation of whenever i hear this type of argument only certain facts are presented. Facts which show refugee arrivals in a poor light. Surely that is presenting an unbalanced argument?

[Will27]

That may be so, but they're still the facts, just like the ones you provided are. You could go through the

whole report and pick out ones that tend to support your point of view. As we know, stats can tell you anything.

It's no different to others giving links to read that are from refugee advocates.

Of course you're getting a slanted opinon.

I know there's a few radical opinions out there which I don't necessarily agree with, but, I was just getting a little

fed up with the continued barrages of people who don't agree with the open door policy, getting put under the

umbrella of "uniformed, bogans", etc etc.

Even the part that you have highlighted doesn't look that great. After 4 years approx 40 per cent have "some type of job".

To me, that's doesn't read so well.

Like I said previously, I have no problem with refugee's getting looked after, it's just the amount that I mainly object to.

There are some on here who have said they would like everyone who arrives here to be let in and settled, I'm just not one of them.

But Will27, you are not providing facts, that's the problem. For example you say:

"Even after five years here, most refugees had poor or no English".

That statement is not supported at all, in fact the survey shows 75% take or have taken English lessons with around 50% being good or very good at English.

You pick the lowest group by country of origin and only comment on their unemployment rate. You are giving an impression that there is 90% unemployment for all refugee arrivals. Not true again.

You say 95% (or similar) receive benefits. Probably 90% of Australian citizens get some form of benefit from centrelink in some way other.

These examples I give are representative of so many of the arguments I hear; they misuse data in support of an argument, they are sensationalist, and they are unbalanced.

Well again, I have to disagree with you, they are the facts.

You said " survey shows 75% take or have taken English lessons with around 50% being good or very good at English".

The figures are that 51.2 have a "not well or not at all" proficiency. I said most, perhaps half would've been a better word.

Just because 75% take lessons does not mean they're proficient at it.

I don't see how stating that 95% of Afghans are on unemployment benefits is giving an impression that 90% of all refugees are on benefits. You said "not true again". I never said it in the first instance.

In fact, 85% of all entrants are on Centrelink benefits and were still on them after 5 years. The unemployment rates are extremely high, with only 9% of Afghans employed and 12% of Iraqi's employed.

The largest age demographic of arrivals from all countries is the 35 to 44 age group. Out of this group, over 65% are unemployed and 88% of the household receive benefits.

I don't agree with you that the data I've used has been misused, sensationalist or unbalanced. It's like you saying that probably 90% of Australian citizens get a Centrelink benefit I guess.

IMO you are being disingenuous.

You mentioned the high rate of unemployment and you exaggerated the rate of English proficiency to give weight to your argument. You misused the data to support your views by offering an unfair balance.

My last sentence was not aimed as a personal critique of yourself, but a general observation of whenever i hear this type of argument only certain facts are presented. Facts which show refugee arrivals in a poor light. Surely that is presenting an unbalanced argument?

Again, I don't agree.

I originally said "most refugee's had no or poor English after 5 years". It's about 50/50, when after 4 years it's over 50%.

I said I previously "half" would've been a better word. The high unemployment rates are correct.

You don't think that only certain facts are presented by refugee advocates to provide a slanted view?

Of course I'm going to provide stats to support my argument, just as samran and Simple1 provide stats that

will support their argument.

I guess people can have a look at the survey and read into it what they will, and we can agree to disagree.

[simple1]

Of course I'm going to provide stats to support my argument, just as samran and Simple1 provide stats that will support their argument.

I guess people can have a look at the survey and read into it what they will, and we can agree to disagree.

I have quoted the stats from the DIAC report on outcomes for those arriving in Australia on Humanitarian visas. I suppose the sampling would be from the 67,107 visa granted from 2006 - 2011. The info provided from the report is quite detailed and analysed across a number of factors such as age group, education etc, so where is the distortion in the stats posted by me?

A lot of detail is also provided by Immigration at the URL below. Following on from Scott's previous question on processing times I just noticed that:

Applications

In 2010–11, a total of 54 396 applications were made for visas under the offshore component of the Humanitarian Program. Of these, 29 793 were made under the Refugee category and 24 603 were made under the SHP category.

Note: The high demand for visas mean that it may take several years for applications to be decided and most will be unsuccessful.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/60refugee.htm

EDIT: You dismiss the refugee report, that for your ease of reference I have reposted the link below. I would be interested to receive your response on their myths versus facts analysis and where their rebuttals are incorrect

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php

[BookMan]

Again, I don't agree.

I originally said "most refugee's had no or poor English after 5 years". It's about 50/50, when after 4 years it's over 50%.

I said I previously "half" would've been a better word. The high unemployment rates are correct.

You don't think that only certain facts are presented by refugee advocates to provide a slanted view?

Of course I'm going to provide stats to support my argument, just as samran and Simple1 provide stats that

will support their argument.

I guess people can have a look at the survey and read into it what they will, and we can agree to disagree.

You are correct. We can phrase how we want. I could have correctly phrased the point you made as this:

90% of refugees can speak English after just one year in Australia.

Let us look at the English stats. It is not for people who have been here 5 years+ it is people between 12 months - 5 years. You took the 'after 5 year' view. I took the 1 year view.

As for the speaking English. Here are the actual stats. Arrivals who have been here between 1-5 years.

Not at all 10.4%

Not well 41.3%

Well 35.8%

Very well 11.4 %

So we can see that 90% speak English.

[thaibeachlovers]

DIAC, did a survey of 8500 people accepted under the humanitarian program a few years ago.

Not surprisingly, the vast majority of boat arrivals were from Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran and Sri Lanka.

Some interesting results though. Just 9 per cent of Afghan adults had a job and 94 per cent were receiving benefits.

The same story among Iranian adults, just 12 per cent of whom work.

Also, 40 per cent of the refugees surveyed said they were getting medical treatment.

Even after five years here, most refugees had poor or no English.

I've got no problem with the government looking after refugee's as such, but just because I don't agree with an "open door"

policy, it doesn't mean I am uncompassionate, a bogan, feeble minded or a racist, as often get's insinuated here.

It has cost us billions, was getting out of control and had to be reigned in.

I also see that the Looney from the Greens Christine Milne, has blamed Abbott for the typhoon in the Phillipines,

calling him "Typhoon Tony". If that's the best the Greens have, no wonder they're in trouble.

BTW, I don't have a link for the survey but it's out there somewhere.

Will27, with respect, you might be cherry picking some stats to bolster your point of view. The report is 100 pages long.

In less than one 5 minutes of reading I found these facts.

Language

Humanitarian migrants are split fairly evenly on speaking/writing/reading English very well or

well, compared with not well or not at all. A large majority (72%) have studied or are studying

English in Australia.

• (English skills are roughly 50% well/very well)
• While unemployment is higher for humanitarian migrants they are more likely to be looking at further education.

Employment and income

While Humanitarian entrants are less likely to be working compared with other streams, they are

far more likely to be studying full-time, studying and working or studying and looking after their

families. Given that we are exploring only the first five years of settlement in this study, this is

not a surprising result as many Humanitarian entrants are strongly focused on creating a new life,

and studying for a qualification is an important step in this journey. As outlined in chart 11

earlier, after 4 years living in Australia, around 40% of Humanitarian entrants have a job of some type.

What I'd like to see is how many have assimilated into Australian society, and how many still live in ethnic ghettos. The idea that they can make a life in Oz for the rest of their lives, but make no effort to accept the Oz culture is abhorrent to me. It's the same thing that outraged me in the UK, where they still commit so called "honour killings" and female genital mutilation on their daughters. Even worse are the western cretins that try to excuse it on the grounds of culture.

[samran]

A definition of integrated would be welcome there TBL.

And perhaps an indication of how well you live up to the mark in Thailand as well....

[thaibeachlovers]

A definition of integrated would be welcome there TBL.

And perhaps an indication of how well you live up to the mark in Thailand as well....

< perhaps an indication of how well you live up to the mark in Thailand>

I was wondering who would be the first to say that- you win!

I am not a refugee begging Thailand to let me live here, and staying here till I die was never part of the plan. I am basically a long term tourist.

< definition of integrated would be welcome>

to make (a person or group) part of a larger group or organization would seem to fit my idea of integration.

Living in ethnic ghettos, not learning the dominant language, sending children to ethnic schools rather than public schools, rejecting the dominant culture and calling for one's own religious laws to apply in preference to the law of the land is evidence of not being willing to integrate.

[BookMan]

A definition of integrated would be welcome there TBL.

And perhaps an indication of how well you live up to the mark in Thailand as well....

< perhaps an indication of how well you live up to the mark in Thailand>

I was wondering who would be the first to say that- you win!

I am not a refugee begging Thailand to let me live here, and staying here till I die was never part of the plan. I am basically a long term tourist.

< definition of integrated would be welcome>

to make (a person or group) part of a larger group or organization would seem to fit my idea of integration.

Living in ethnic ghettos, not learning the dominant language, sending children to ethnic schools rather than public schools, rejecting the dominant culture and calling for one's own religious laws to apply in preference to the law of the land is evidence of not being willing to integrate.

Ahhh democracy...It only works when people toe the line eh?

[thaibeachlovers]

A definition of integrated would be welcome there TBL.

And perhaps an indication of how well you live up to the mark in Thailand as well....

< perhaps an indication of how well you live up to the mark in Thailand>

I was wondering who would be the first to say that- you win!

I am not a refugee begging Thailand to let me live here, and staying here till I die was never part of the plan. I am basically a long term tourist.

< definition of integrated would be welcome>

to make (a person or group) part of a larger group or organization would seem to fit my idea of integration.

Living in ethnic ghettos, not learning the dominant language, sending children to ethnic schools rather than public schools, rejecting the dominant culture and calling for one's own religious laws to apply in preference to the law of the land is evidence of not being willing to integrate.

Ahhh democracy...It only works when people toe the line eh?

There's no such thing as "democracy" in the world, only the dictatorship of the powerful.

If they want to take my tax money to support them, they'd damn well better integrate, or they can go back to their own country.

[David48]

Great, don't know how to post video links, do you mind posting the links for the rest of the doco? cannot recall the detail & would be very interested to view again...

Thanks...

This has Naught to do with the OP ... Australia to Send Refugees to Papua New Guinea

Since none of the rufergess originated from Papua New Genuina ... I won't be watching.

[BookMan]

There's no such thing as "democracy" in the world, only the dictatorship of the powerful.

If they want to take my tax money to support them, they'd dam_n well better integrate, or they can go back to their own country.

So by that logic...

As soon as they have a job and pay tax they can then do whatever they want?

[Will27]

Of course I'm going to provide stats to support my argument, just as samran and Simple1 provide stats that will support their argument.

I guess people can have a look at the survey and read into it what they will, and we can agree to disagree.

I have quoted the stats from the DIAC report on outcomes for those arriving in Australia on Humanitarian visas. I suppose the sampling would be from the 67,107 visa granted from 2006 - 2011. The info provided from the report is quite detailed and analysed across a number of factors such as age group, education etc, so where is the distortion in the stats posted by me?

A lot of detail is also provided by Immigration at the URL below. Following on from Scott's previous question on processing times I just noticed that:

Applications

In 2010–11, a total of 54 396 applications were made for visas under the offshore component of the Humanitarian Program. Of these, 29 793 were made under the Refugee category and 24 603 were made under the SHP category.

Note: The high demand for visas mean that it may take several years for applications to be decided and most will be unsuccessful.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/60refugee.htm

EDIT: You dismiss the refugee report, that for your ease of reference I have reposted the link below. I would be interested to receive your response on their myths versus facts analysis and where their rebuttals are incorrect

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php

What I was trying to say, albeit poorly, was that you provide links from refugee advocates continually and they're

hardly going to be unbiased. It was like when we were discussing Article 31, you put forward the RCOA's interpretation

of it as if it were gospel.

For a start, I didn't agree with their interpretation on Article 31 way back in post 355.

Here's another one "Tough border protection policies will stop people smugglers and prevent asylum seekers from making risky journeys.”

Well, I don't see how that is true seeing as Howards tough policies had virtually stop the boats.

I could go on, as you could, but can't really see the point.

[Will27]

Again, I don't agree.

I originally said "most refugee's had no or poor English after 5 years". It's about 50/50, when after 4 years it's over 50%.

I said I previously "half" would've been a better word. The high unemployment rates are correct.

You don't think that only certain facts are presented by refugee advocates to provide a slanted view?

Of course I'm going to provide stats to support my argument, just as samran and Simple1 provide stats that

will support their argument.

I guess people can have a look at the survey and read into it what they will, and we can agree to disagree.

You are correct. We can phrase how we want. I could have correctly phrased the point you made as this:

90% of refugees can speak English after just one year in Australia.

Let us look at the English stats. It is not for people who have been here 5 years+ it is people between 12 months - 5 years. You took the 'after 5 year' view. I took the 1 year view.

As for the speaking English. Here are the actual stats. Arrivals who have been here between 1-5 years.

Not at all 10.4%

Not well 41.3%

Well 35.8%

Very well 11.4 %

So we can see that 90% speak English.

BookMan, my head is starting to hurt now.

Think I'll stick to the footy, movie and cricket forums

[David48]

The highlighting of the lack of English as some sort of failure for me is a puzzling one.

Presumably many who decry the lack of English amongst migrants are bemoaning thye fact while they are typing on their keyboard in Thailand. Most of those would have rudimentary Thai, at best, and will never know any more.

The reason is simple, when you move to a new country you actually don't need to learn much of the local lingo to get by. That applies to the refugees in OZ as much as for the farangs who have made Thailand their home.

My Grandmother did the last 25 years of her life in OZ with barely a word of English. A legal migrant she lived a productive life, was well known around our local shops and helped our family tick over while my parents worked. She taught me a foreign language to boot and provided my family free child care till we were in our teens. But she never worked a day of paid employment.

So as will27 says, stats can be interpreted in any way you want. My bet is those who aren't working are nevertheless leading highly productive lives, just like my grandmother did.

As you all know, and regularly whine about here on Thai Visa, living in a new country is hard work.

Sorry samran (and those who know me and him know that I count him amongst my friends ... ditto BookMan) ... but the comment has naught to do with the OP which is about 'Australia to Send Refugees to Papua New Guinea' ... an OP about the wherefores of Refugees settling in Australia ... sure ... but about 'Australia to Send Refugees to Papua New Guinea' ... surely not.

Mods ... ???

[Will27]

The highlighting of the lack of English as some sort of failure for me is a puzzling one.

Presumably many who decry the lack of English amongst migrants are bemoaning thye fact while they are typing on their keyboard in Thailand. Most of those would have rudimentary Thai, at best, and will never know any more.

The reason is simple, when you move to a new country you actually don't need to learn much of the local lingo to get by. That applies to the refugees in OZ as much as for the farangs who have made Thailand their home.

My Grandmother did the last 25 years of her life in OZ with barely a word of English. A legal migrant she lived a productive life, was well known around our local shops and helped our family tick over while my parents worked. She taught me a foreign language to boot and provided my family free child care till we were in our teens. But she never worked a day of paid employment.

So as will27 says, stats can be interpreted in any way you want. My bet is those who aren't working are nevertheless leading highly productive lives, just like my grandmother did.

As you all know, and regularly whine about here on Thai Visa, living in a new country is hard work.

Sorry samran (and those who know me and him know that I count him amongst my friends ... ditto BookMan) ... but the comment has naught to do with the OP which is about 'Australia to Send Refugees to Papua New Guinea' ... an OP about the wherefores of Refugees settling in Australia ... sure ... but about 'Australia to Send Refugees to Papua New Guinea' ... surely not.

Mods ... ???

Samran, if you're referring to my post 488, I cannot see where a lack of English was highlighted as a failure.

I said "there were some interesting points".

[simple1]

Great, don't know how to post video links, do you mind posting the links for the rest of the doco? cannot recall the detail & would be very interested to view again...

Thanks...

This has Naught to do with the OP ... Australia to Send Refugees to Papua New Guinea

Since none of the rufergess originated from Papua New Genuina ... I won't be watching.

Once again we disagree. The documentary contributes to the Australian publics' understanding of some of the drivers for asylum seekers/refugees decisions and perhaps some would no longer support the harsh PNG policy. I guess your comment on refugees originating from PNG was a typo

[David48]

Great, don't know how to post video links, do you mind posting the links for the rest of the doco? cannot recall the detail & would be very interested to view again...

Thanks...

This has Naught to do with the OP ... Australia to Send Refugees to Papua New Guinea

Since none of the rufergess originated from Papua New Genuina ... I won't be watching.

Once again we disagree. The documentary contributes to the Australian publics' understanding of some of the drivers for asylum seekers/refugees decisions and perhaps would no longer support the harsh PNG policy. I guess your comment on refugees originating from PNG was a typo

In the program above ... "I guess your comment on refugees originating from PNG was a typo" ... did any of the refugees originate from PNG?

If not ... it has naught to do with the OP.

It has everything to do with the greater question relating to Global and Australian Refugees programs ... granted ... 100% ... but related to relocating illegal boat arrivals to PNG ... NO ... 100%

Remembering that we are replying to the OP ... not either your or my personal beliefs on what should be done with the refugees that present themselves on Australian shores.