Australia to Send Refugees to Papua New Guinea

[Scott]

If you are interested in discussing other issues, please do so in a different thread.

Thanks.

[Scott]

A reply to the link has been removed. Again, it is off-topic. Discuss it elsewhere.

[samran]

To the people who are saying they should be happy to be settled in PNG. Let's count the attractive factors here:

- PNG itself produces refugee's

- Levels of domestic violence against women there are some the highest anywhere in the world.

- the incidence of physical violence is high.

- PNG law does not provide work rights for refugee's.

So again, how is this something you'd settle for. Quite a few people here in their ivory towers of suburban comfort. I wouldn't settle for such shabby and dangerous conditions for my family. Why should they?

Oh that's right. They're Muslim.

[samran]

Obviously facts are lost in this thread.

Could be RNS.

But Oz is not the closest country to the originating points for a lot of the refugees. One has to ask why Oz when there are other countries closer?

And from the Aussie's position, I would ask some of the countries in the EU and see how their refugee situation turned out. I wonder how many of them would like to rethink their refugee decision 20 or 10 years ago.

show me a country between Iran/Afghanistan and OZ where there is a country which is a sigatory to the refugee convention.

[harrry]

Obviously facts are lost in this thread.

Could be RNS.

But Oz is not the closest country to the originating points for a lot of the refugees. One has to ask why Oz when there are other countries closer?

And from the Aussie's position, I would ask some of the countries in the EU and see how their refugee situation turned out. I wonder how many of them would like to rethink their refugee decision 20 or 10 years ago.

show me a country between Iran/Afghanistan and OZ where there is a country which is a sigatory to the refugee convention.

Maybe there is a simple answer in that case. Withdraw from the convention that few countries support and concentrate on using the money in humane manner to suit Australia and aid it in helping those of other counties in the way it feels best.

[chooka]

To the people who are saying they should be happy to be settled in PNG. Let's count the attractive factors here:

- PNG itself produces refugee's

- Levels of domestic violence against women there are some the highest anywhere in the world.

- the incidence of physical violence is high.

- PNG law does not provide work rights for refugee's.

So again, how is this something you'd settle for. Quite a few people here in their ivory towers of suburban comfort. I wouldn't settle for such shabby and dangerous conditions for my family. Why should they?

Oh that's right. They're Muslim.

I don't believe religion played any part in the Governments decision to send refugees to PNG. The decision however has boosted the polls and polls of Australians who support the idea are greater than those who do not. Yes maybe many Australians support the idea based on religion because a lot of the Australian community is terrorfied of Islam and the image it portrays around the world with all the violence.

PNG actually is offering them a better way of life than that of what they allegedly fled. They are actually upgrading their lives not down scaling. They can't place demands on what country they want to live in or what leafy suburb they want to live in. They have been offered a home and should be grateful and not spit in the face of those trying to help you.

It is so very simple for them if they don't like what is being offered free of charge then don't come. Get on a boat for Europe, the U.S or somewhere else for your free handouts. Totally disrespectful to complain.

[samran]

To the people who are saying they should be happy to be settled in PNG. Let's count the attractive factors here:

- PNG itself produces refugee's

- Levels of domestic violence against women there are some the highest anywhere in the world.

- the incidence of physical violence is high.

- PNG law does not provide work rights for refugee's.

So again, how is this something you'd settle for. Quite a few people here in their ivory towers of suburban comfort. I wouldn't settle for such shabby and dangerous conditions for my family. Why should they?

Oh that's right. They're Muslim.

I don't believe religion played any part in the Governments decision to send refugees to PNG. The decision however has boosted the polls and polls of Australians who support the idea are greater than those who do not. Yes maybe many Australians support the idea based on religion because a lot of the Australian community is terrorfied of Islam and the image it portrays around the world with all the violence.

PNG actually is offering them a better way of life than that of what they allegedly fled. They are actually upgrading their lives not down scaling. They can't place demands on what country they want to live in or what leafy suburb they want to live in. They have been offered a home and should be grateful and not spit in the face of those trying to help you.

It is so very simple for them if they don't like what is being offered free of charge then don't come. Get on a boat for Europe, the U.S or somewhere else for your free handouts. Totally disrespectful to complain.

Again, how is PNG a 'better way of life'. I'm really fasinated by that. What use is a new home if you are not allowed to work there and feed your family, and while you are sitting around your women stand a much higher being raped and where the locals carry around machette's as a matter of course?

People talk about how welfare is a destructive force (a la Noel Pearson) but on the other hand, its okay to spend billions over the odds (if Nairu and Christmas Island are anything to go by) to let peope fester on Australian funded handouts sitting around doing nothing in PNG (cause lets face it, it isn't PNG picking up the tab for this).

If it was me, there are roads and trainlines in Australia needing building. They could easily be used there if we were going to do anything with them.

People seem to forget during the last wave of Afgahn refugees, the National Party lobbied hardest for them to be settled in country towns. Why? Cause given they had no access to welfare, these young blokes ended up working in the abbatoirs and other local businesses that had been crying out for local labour for years. These towns were rejuvinated overnight to the benefit of both the new commers and the locals. That is what we should be doing, not sticking them in the jungle in the effort to show the Australian public who can be the biggest pr!ck.

Edited July 26, 2013 by samran

[David48]

But Oz is not the closest country to the originating points for a lot of the refugees. One has to ask why Oz when there are other countries closer?

show me a country between Iran/Afghanistan and OZ where there is a country which is a sigatory to the refugee convention.

Apologies samran, you know I hold you in high respect, but the answer to your question is below.

Almost anywhere is closer then Australia (the green bits).

Should they wish to try somewhere close to their Culture and Muslim, Yemen is 99% Muslim

Sudan in Africa is 99% Muslim

Removing the religious factor, their choices are many.

Some countries maybe better economic choices then others ... hence the drive to try asylum in Australia.

.

[samran]

But Oz is not the closest country to the originating points for a lot of the refugees. One has to ask why Oz when there are other countries closer?

show me a country between Iran/Afghanistan and OZ where there is a country which is a sigatory to the refugee convention.

Apologies samran, you know I hold you in high respect, but the answer to your question is below.

Almost anywhere is closer then Australia (the green bits).

Should they wish to try somewhere close to their Culture and Muslim, Yemen is 99% Muslim

Sudan in Africa is 99% Muslim

Removing the religious factor, their choices are many.

Some countries maybe better economic choices then others ... hence the drive to try asylum in Australia.

.

And you know Dave that most of these countries are producing refugee's themselves. Your map highlights Afgahnistan, Iran, and Sudan amongst others as signatories. They might be, but they aren't safe havens. They are often of the wrong sect or tribe, and hence persecuted. It is a pretty simplistic view of the world to say otherwise. Bit like saying 'well they look Asian, they must be all the same then'. Just ask the Rohinygah's.

There is more at work than a simple 'who is green on the map' excerise.

Edited July 26, 2013 by samran

[David48]

^^ Mate, like politics, religion, ManU or Liverpool ... all things contentious by nature.

... we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

.

[samran]

^^ Mate, like politics, religion, ManU or Liverpool ... all things contentious by nature.

... we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

.

That very well might be the case. But no one here advociating the 'anywhere but Australia' option has bothered to show how many refugees any of these middle countries have accepted for settlement.

[harrry]

^^ Mate, like politics, religion, ManU or Liverpool ... all things contentious by nature.

... we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

.

That very well might be the case. But no one here advociating the 'anywhere but Australia' option has bothered to show how many refugees any of these middle countries have accepted for settlement.

So why should Australia be different?

[David48]

^^ Mate, like politics, religion, ManU or Liverpool ... all things contentious by nature.

... we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

.

That very well might be the case. But no one here advociating the 'anywhere but Australia' option has bothered to show how many refugees any of these middle countries have accepted for settlement.

Australia is a few places either side of the 'world's average for accepting Refugees ...

I referenced it here (below) earlier in the discussion. the link is in the quote.

Since facts are important and it does allow the issue to be seen in a rational light.

Much has been made of the rather small number of Refugees that Australia accepts.

From the Wiki data, Australia accepted 23,434 Refugees, while the USA accepted 264,763 Refugees ... more then 10 times the amount that Australia in that statistical year did.

However ...

When you look at it more rationally, say based on the countries population, Australia accepted 1 Refugee for every 997 Australians ... while the USA accepted 1 Refugee for every 1195 Americans.

So, on that basis, we accept more Refugees on a 'per capita basis' then the Yanks.

We are, admittedly, just under the World Average of 1 Refugee for every 683 people.

Sweden is a shining light accepting 1 Refugee for every 107 Swedes ... has anyone read reports of issues within Sweden and their open Immigration Policies?

.

.

[samran]

^^ Mate, like politics, religion, ManU or Liverpool ... all things contentious by nature.

... we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

.

That very well might be the case. But no one here advociating the 'anywhere but Australia' option has bothered to show how many refugees any of these middle countries have accepted for settlement.

[samran]

^^ Mate, like politics, religion, ManU or Liverpool ... all things contentious by nature.

... we will just have to agree to disagree on this issue.

.

That very well might be the case. But no one here advociating the 'anywhere but Australia' option has bothered to show how many refugees any of these middle countries have accepted for settlement.

So why should Australia be different?

Cause thats what mature countries do. Given our relative wealth, we can look to take in our fair share of those who need help, however they arrive. We can walk and chew gum at the same time. We have done for years. We can continue to do so. And within a sustainable mix of skilled migration and other schemes, I'll take a refugee anyday who is hungry to build a new life.

Edited July 26, 2013 by samran

[chooka]

To the people who are saying they should be happy to be settled in PNG. Let's count the attractive factors here:

- PNG itself produces refugee's

- Levels of domestic violence against women there are some the highest anywhere in the world.

- the incidence of physical violence is high.

- PNG law does not provide work rights for refugee's.

So again, how is this something you'd settle for. Quite a few people here in their ivory towers of suburban comfort. I wouldn't settle for such shabby and dangerous conditions for my family. Why should they?

Oh that's right. They're Muslim.

I don't believe religion played any part in the Governments decision to send refugees to PNG. The decision however has boosted the polls and polls of Australians who support the idea are greater than those who do not. Yes maybe many Australians support the idea based on religion because a lot of the Australian community is terrorfied of Islam and the image it portrays around the world with all the violence.

PNG actually is offering them a better way of life than that of what they allegedly fled. They are actually upgrading their lives not down scaling. They can't place demands on what country they want to live in or what leafy suburb they want to live in. They have been offered a home and should be grateful and not spit in the face of those trying to help you.

It is so very simple for them if they don't like what is being offered free of charge then don't come. Get on a boat for Europe, the U.S or somewhere else for your free handouts. Totally disrespectful to complain.

Again, how is PNG a 'better way of life'. I'm really fasinated by that. What use is a new home if you are not allowed to work there and feed your family, and while you are sitting around your women stand a much higher being raped and where the locals carry around machette's as a matter of course?

People talk about how welfare is a destructive force (a la Noel Pearson) but on the other hand, its okay to spend billions over the odds (if Nairu and Christmas Island are anything to go by) to let peope fester on Australian funded handouts sitting around doing nothing in PNG (cause lets face it, it isn't PNG picking up the tab for this).

If it was me, there are roads and trainlines in Australia needing building. They could easily be used there if we were going to do anything with them.

People seem to forget during the last wave of Afgahn refugees, the National Party lobbied hardest for them to be settled in country towns. Why? Cause given they had no access to welfare, these young blokes ended up working in the abbatoirs and other local businesses that had been crying out for local labour for years. These towns were rejuvinated overnight to the benefit of both the new commers and the locals. That is what we should be doing, not sticking them in the jungle in the effort to show the Australian public who can be the biggest pr!ck.

Well the choice is 100% thiers, if they really want to head this way then they live in PNG. No one is forcing them and trying to blame Australia for the asylum seekers choice is wrong. They are being told there is no way if they come by boat without documentation that they get the country of choice. Very simple it is all on their shoulders.

If they really want Australia keep their passports (they got visa in them on arrival in Indonesia) apply through the normal channels. Thousands of refugees from across the globe have been settled in Australia by going through the correct channels and thousands more will in the future.

This policy is NOT Anti refugee it is to stop the boats which in turn saves lives and isn't that enough if a few 100 or 1000 lives are saved every year. Maybe we should just sacrifice a couple 1000 lives at sea just so others get the nice middle class suburb that they want and the people smugglers empire grows along with their wealth.

[simple1]

To the people who are saying they should be happy to be settled in PNG. Let's count the attractive factors here:

- PNG itself produces refugee's

- Levels of domestic violence against women there are some the highest anywhere in the world.

- the incidence of physical violence is high.

- PNG law does not provide work rights for refugee's.

So again, how is this something you'd settle for. Quite a few people here in their ivory towers of suburban comfort. I wouldn't settle for such shabby and dangerous conditions for my family. Why should they?

Oh that's right. They're Muslim.

I don't believe religion played any part in the Governments decision to send refugees to PNG. The decision however has boosted the polls and polls of Australians who support the idea are greater than those who do not. Yes maybe many Australians support the idea based on religion because a lot of the Australian community is terrorfied of Islam and the image it portrays around the world with all the violence.

PNG actually is offering them a better way of life than that of what they allegedly fled. They are actually upgrading their lives not down scaling. They can't place demands on what country they want to live in or what leafy suburb they want to live in. They have been offered a home and should be grateful and not spit in the face of those trying to help you.

It is so very simple for them if they don't like what is being offered free of charge then don't come. Get on a boat for Europe, the U.S or somewhere else for your free handouts. Totally disrespectful to complain.

Again, how is PNG a 'better way of life'. I'm really fasinated by that. What use is a new home if you are not allowed to work there and feed your family, and while you are sitting around your women stand a much higher being raped and where the locals carry around machette's as a matter of course?

People talk about how welfare is a destructive force (a la Noel Pearson) but on the other hand, its okay to spend billions over the odds (if Nairu and Christmas Island are anything to go by) to let peope fester on Australian funded handouts sitting around doing nothing in PNG (cause lets face it, it isn't PNG picking up the tab for this).

If it was me, there are roads and trainlines in Australia needing building. They could easily be used there if we were going to do anything with them.

People seem to forget during the last wave of Afgahn refugees, the National Party lobbied hardest for them to be settled in country towns. Why? Cause given they had no access to welfare, these young blokes ended up working in the abbatoirs and other local businesses that had been crying out for local labour for years. These towns were rejuvinated overnight to the benefit of both the new commers and the locals. That is what we should be doing, not sticking them in the jungle in the effort to show the Australian public who can be the biggest pr!ck.

Well the choice is 100% thiers, if they really want to head this way then they live in PNG. No one is forcing them and trying to blame Australia for the asylum seekers choice is wrong. They are being told there is no way if they come by boat without documentation that they get the country of choice. Very simple it is all on their shoulders.

If they really want Australia keep their passports (they got visa in them on arrival in Indonesia) apply through the normal channels. Thousands of refugees from across the globe have been settled in Australia by going through the correct channels and thousands more will in the future.

This policy is NOT Anti refugee it is to stop the boats which in turn saves lives and isn't that enough if a few 100 or 1000 lives are saved every year. Maybe we should just sacrifice a couple 1000 lives at sea just so others get the nice middle class suburb that they want and the people smugglers empire grows along with their wealth.

It is incorrect to state that arriving without doco that they will not have any choice for country of resettlement. The PNG agreement is that all refugees arriving by sea will have no choice, after being assessed as legitimate, but to be resettled in PNG. If they decline either be held in detention whilst UNHCR tries to resettle them in another country, but not in Australia or if possible return to their home country.

The policy is firmly aimed at the people smugglers business model. Right now it is estimated there are enough spaces for 600 refugees in detainment camps in PNG and it will take a year or two to be able to accommodate up to 3,000. So in the meantime where are they going to be held in detention?

Rudd is indulging in bullshit baffles brains with this new policy & will soon be exposed as unworkable. However, as said, maybe it's enough to get Labor over the line in the coming election. I believe many Australians will in a very short time regret supporting this policy as being hugely expensive & ineffective. It is likely will not get the agreement continuance go-ahead from PNG government during the annual review. End result will be another U Turn for Labor.

CNN’s report on why the PNG solution will not work

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/24/opinion/australia-asylum-seekers-png/?hpt=hp_c3

Whether Australian government cares or not, but the UNHCR has just announced it is concerned and troubled by the PNG solution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/world/asia/un-troubled-by-australias-new-policy-on-asylum-seekers.html?_r=0

Edited July 26, 2013 by simple1

[Exsexyman]

Would there be an election coming up in Australia in the near future by any chance? Or am i just being a bit cynical!

[harrry]

Well the choice is 100% thiers, if they really want to head this way then they live in PNG. No one is forcing them and trying to blame Australia for the asylum seekers choice is wrong. They are being told there is no way if they come by boat without documentation that they get the country of choice. Very simple it is all on their shoulders.

If they really want Australia keep their passports (they got visa in them on arrival in Indonesia) apply through the normal channels. Thousands of refugees from across the globe have been settled in Australia by going through the correct channels and thousands more will in the future.

This policy is NOT Anti refugee it is to stop the boats which in turn saves lives and isn't that enough if a few 100 or 1000 lives are saved every year. Maybe we should just sacrifice a couple 1000 lives at sea just so others get the nice middle class suburb that they want and the people smugglers empire grows along with their wealth.

It is incorrect to state that arriving without doco that they will not have any choice for country of resettlement. The PNG agreement is that all refugees arriving by sea will have no choice, after being assessed as legitimate, but to be resettled in PNG. If they decline either be held in detention whilst UNHCR tries to resettle them in another country, but not in Australia or if possible return to their home country.

The policy is firmly aimed at the people smugglers business model. Right now it is estimated there are enough spaces for 600 refugees in detainment camps in PNG and it will take a year or two to be able to accommodate up to 3,000. So in the meantime where are they going to be held in detention?

Rudd is indulging in bullshit baffles brains with this new policy & will soon be exposed as unworkable. However, as said, maybe it's enough to get Labor over the line in the coming election. I believe many Australians will in a very short time regret supporting this policy as being hugely expensive & ineffective. It is likely will not get the agreement continuance go-ahead from PNG government during the annual review. End result will be another U Turn for Labor.

CNN’s report on why the PNG solution will not work

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/24/opinion/australia-asylum-seekers-png/?hpt=hp_c3

Whether Australian government cares or not, but the UNHCR has just announced it is concerned and troubled by the PNG solution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/world/asia/un-troubled-by-australias-new-policy-on-asylum-seekers.html?_r=0

From my reading what he is concerned about is that PNG may not treat them right. This is a matter between the UN and PNG not the UN and Australia as PNG is a signatory and hence its treatment meets their standards.

[samran]

Since facts are important and it does allow the issue to be seen in a rational light.

Much has been made of the rather small number of Refugees that Australia accepts.

From the Wiki data, Australia accepted 23,434 Refugees, while the USA accepted 264,763 Refugees ... more then 10 times the amount that Australia in that statistical year did.

However ...

When you look at it more rationally, say based on the countries population, Australia accepted 1 Refugee for every 997 Australians ... while the USA accepted 1 Refugee for every 1195 Americans.

So, on that basis, we accept more Refugees on a 'per capita basis' then the Yanks.

We are, admittedly, just under the World Average of 1 Refugee for every 683 people.

Sweden is a shining light accepting 1 Refugee for every 107 Swedes ... has anyone read reports of issues within Sweden and their open Immigration Policies?

.

In case you've been living under a rock,Sweden has serious rioting issues for several years now.

Most of these youths are from a muslim background.

http://news.ca.msn.com/world/sweden-cleans-up-after-another-night-of-riots

So what are we saying here? Cause they are Muslim there are prone to riot more?

Or, unemployement and social disadvantage are the root causes of violence like this?

[simple1]

Well the choice is 100% thiers, if they really want to head this way then they live in PNG. No one is forcing them and trying to blame Australia for the asylum seekers choice is wrong. They are being told there is no way if they come by boat without documentation that they get the country of choice. Very simple it is all on their shoulders.

If they really want Australia keep their passports (they got visa in them on arrival in Indonesia) apply through the normal channels. Thousands of refugees from across the globe have been settled in Australia by going through the correct channels and thousands more will in the future.

This policy is NOT Anti refugee it is to stop the boats which in turn saves lives and isn't that enough if a few 100 or 1000 lives are saved every year. Maybe we should just sacrifice a couple 1000 lives at sea just so others get the nice middle class suburb that they want and the people smugglers empire grows along with their wealth.

It is incorrect to state that arriving without doco that they will not have any choice for country of resettlement. The PNG agreement is that all refugees arriving by sea will have no choice, after being assessed as legitimate, but to be resettled in PNG. If they decline either be held in detention whilst UNHCR tries to resettle them in another country, but not in Australia or if possible return to their home country.

The policy is firmly aimed at the people smugglers business model. Right now it is estimated there are enough spaces for 600 refugees in detainment camps in PNG and it will take a year or two to be able to accommodate up to 3,000. So in the meantime where are they going to be held in detention?

Rudd is indulging in bullshit baffles brains with this new policy & will soon be exposed as unworkable. However, as said, maybe it's enough to get Labor over the line in the coming election. I believe many Australians will in a very short time regret supporting this policy as being hugely expensive & ineffective. It is likely will not get the agreement continuance go-ahead from PNG government during the annual review. End result will be another U Turn for Labor.

CNN’s report on why the PNG solution will not work

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/07/24/opinion/australia-asylum-seekers-png/?hpt=hp_c3

Whether Australian government cares or not, but the UNHCR has just announced it is concerned and troubled by the PNG solution.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/07/26/world/asia/un-troubled-by-australias-new-policy-on-asylum-seekers.html?_r=0

From my reading what he is concerned about is that PNG may not treat them right. This is a matter between the UN and PNG not the UN and Australia as PNG is a signatory and hence its treatment meets their standards.

The agreement was not negotiated by the UN, it is an agreement between PNG & Australia without UNHCR concurrence & Australia is in breach of the UN conventions governing the processing of refugees arriving on it's shores. It is Australia who has ownership for funding, providing the facilities and treatment of the refugees in compliance with UN conventions.

As you know Australia was previously heavily critised for it's offshore detention and processing arrangements & is I believe the only country in the world to have an onshore & offshore processing policy.

Edited July 26, 2013 by simple1

[rgs2001uk]

Since facts are important and it does allow the issue to be seen in a rational light.

Much has been made of the rather small number of Refugees that Australia accepts.

From the Wiki data, Australia accepted 23,434 Refugees, while the USA accepted 264,763 Refugees ... more then 10 times the amount that Australia in that statistical year did.

However ...

When you look at it more rationally, say based on the countries population, Australia accepted 1 Refugee for every 997 Australians ... while the USA accepted 1 Refugee for every 1195 Americans.

So, on that basis, we accept more Refugees on a 'per capita basis' then the Yanks.

We are, admittedly, just under the World Average of 1 Refugee for every 683 people.

Sweden is a shining light accepting 1 Refugee for every 107 Swedes ... has anyone read reports of issues within Sweden and their open Immigration Policies?

.

In case you've been living under a rock,Sweden has serious rioting issues for several years now.

Most of these youths are from a muslim background.

http://news.ca.msn.com/world/sweden-cleans-up-after-another-night-of-riots

Indeed, see here,

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/sweden/10080320/Stockholm-riots-leave-Swedens-dreams-of-perfect-society-up-in-smoke.html

I must admit this from the link above made me laugh,

"Also, in Sweden you cannot hit your children to discipline them, and this is a problem for foreign parents

Why should it be a problem?

[David48]

I was hoping that the Swedish example would come into the light.

To put that focus more clearly ...

Stockholm riots leave Sweden's dreams of perfect society up in smoke ...

Like the millions of other ordinary Swedes whom he now sees himself as one of, Mohammed Abbas fears his dream society is now under threat. When he first arrived in Stockholm as refugee from Iran in 1994, the vast Husby council estate where he settled was a mixture of locals and foreigners, a melting pot for what was supposed to be a harmonious, multi-racial paradise.

Two decades on, though, "white flight" has left only one in five of Husby's flats occupied by ethnic Swedes, and many of their immigrant replacements do not seem to share his view that a new life in Sweden is a dream come true. Last week, the neighbourhood erupted into rioting, sparking some of the fiercest urban unrest that Sweden has seen in decades, and a new debate about the success of racial integration.

"In the old days, the neighbourhood was more Swedish and life felt like a dream, but now there are just too many foreigners, and a new generation that has grown up here with just their own culture," he said, gesturing towards the hooded youths milling around in Husby's pedestrianised shopping precinct.

Here

I thought that the last sentence was particularly poignant ... "In the old days, the neighbourhood was more Swedish and life felt like a dream, but now there are just too many foreigners, and a new generation that has grown up here with just their own culture," ... a refugee, settled in Sweden, who now dreams of the 'old days' before this fellow countrymen came and settled in his new adopted homeland.

[David48]

Islamic Riots Continue in Sweden 5th night in a row! ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97QrYsK4rZw

[David48]

Just so that you know me, my thoughts and opinions as an Australian who has, very fortunately travelled and lived in some parts of the worlds.

I'm a firm believer in a compassionate Society which accepts differing viewpoints and opinions. This opens the mind and tests your held beliefs.

So, accordingly I think that it is great that new people, keen to establish themselves in our Culture, take the often risky and perilous journey to our shores, by plane, by boat or, preferably through the UNHCR resettlement program.

Intrinsically we are Australians.

Typically we love are sport, are religiously apathetic, favour the underdog and respect a 'fair go', and are travellers to far flung shores to experience other Cultures.

So that's us ... well, me anyway.

We are an affluent, in a physical material sense anyway, society. That has been achieved by a combination of hard work and (recently) dam_n good luck being a mine for Asia (China and India).

When new Cultures come to our shores and asked to become an Aussie ... that's what I expect.

Sure, we have our Greek festivals or Oktoberfests etc when the old homeland can be celebrated ... and I'll be leading the cheering, dancing or drinking.

This open attitude embraces the KIWIS, the Poms, Greeks, Italians, Chinese, the ... insert country of origin here.

The question of a Muslim Religion has raised it's head. Well, indeed I had an Iranian gf for some years. Actually she preferred to called Persian as that culturally identified her as she wished to be seen. A more lovely lady you never would want to meet. Of course, this doesn't make me an expert, but a modicum of exposure.

Where the Muslim Religion pushes my bad buttons is when 'Christmas is cancelled', because 'we don't wish to offend those children here who aren't Christian' ... <deleted> ... get a grip on yourselves.

Together, celebrate and embrace our differences, but come and try and implant your Culture in my country ... no thanks.

Same as a Farang, I wish not to Anglosize Thailand ... as a country, it would be far poorer for the attempt.

How does this lead into the OP?

Immigration can make an Nation proud and strong ... but only when there is acceptance by the Australians of the recently arrived immigrants ... and this is not the situation at the moment.

As a Sovereign Nation we do have a say in who comes here ... and who doesn't.

I, for one, don't wish to face the social unrest like is currently happening in Sweden.

Nor do I wish to be like Fiji where the Indian population number 313,798 (37.6%) (2007 census) out of a total of 827,900 people living in there. Wiki

So, I'm not trying to change your thinking if you disagree with me, but it wouldn't be nice if you considered these viewpoints.

Let's give the incoming refugees a choice. Burn your identity papers and rest a few years in Papua New Guinea. Or keep your papers and prove to Australian Immigration that you indeed face political persecution of a degree which is life threatening and deserve to take your place in the UNHCR queue.

Do that, and I'll invite you to celebrate Christmas at my place ...

If the above comments tag me as a raciest in your eyes ... give me the cap and I'll wear it.

.

[Scott]

I think we can let the posts on Sweden remain, although they are technically off-topic, however, let's keep the discussion on Australia.

Thanks.

[samran]

The greeks and the brits have all rioted in the past 18 months. I think the Spanish have too. What is your point guys? We stop Greeks and Poms's moving to Australia?

You know one thing I've learned in life? When you get the point of having to defend something as 'not being racist', it probably is. Comments such as 'they should settle amongst their own kind' falls into that category.

If we had a time machine, some of you blokes would be having a go at the Vietnamese back in the early 80's, and the Greeks and the Italian's in the 50's.

Edited July 27, 2013 by samran

[simple1]

Just so that you know me, my thoughts and opinions as an Australian who has, very fortunately travelled and lived in some parts of the worlds.

I'm a firm believer in a compassionate Society which accepts differing viewpoints and opinions. This opens the mind and tests your held beliefs.

So, accordingly I think that it is great that new people, keen to establish themselves in our Culture, take the often risky and perilous journey to our shores, by plane, by boat or, preferably through the UNHCR resettlement program.

Intrinsically we are Australians.

Typically we love are sport, are religiously apathetic, favour the underdog and respect a 'fair go', and are travellers to far flung shores to experience other Cultures.

So that's us ... well, me anyway.

We are an affluent, in a physical material sense anyway, society. That has been achieved by a combination of hard work and (recently) dam_n good luck being a mine for Asia (China and India).

When new Cultures come to our shores and asked to become an Aussie ... that's what I expect.

Sure, we have our Greek festivals or Oktoberfests etc when the old homeland can be celebrated ... and I'll be leading the cheering, dancing or drinking.

This open attitude embraces the KIWIS, the Poms, Greeks, Italians, Chinese, the ... insert country of origin here.

The question of a Muslim Religion has raised it's head. Well, indeed I had an Iranian gf for some years. Actually she preferred to called Persian as that culturally identified her as she wished to be seen. A more lovely lady you never would want to meet. Of course, this doesn't make me an expert, but a modicum of exposure.

Where the Muslim Religion pushes my bad buttons is when 'Christmas is cancelled', because 'we don't wish to offend those children here who aren't Christian' ... <deleted> ... get a grip on yourselves.

Together, celebrate and embrace our differences, but come and try and implant your Culture in my country ... no thanks.

Same as a Farang, I wish not to Anglosize Thailand ... as a country, it would be far poorer for the attempt.

How does this lead into the OP?

Immigration can make an Nation proud and strong ... but only when there is acceptance by the Australians of the recently arrived immigrants ... and this is not the situation at the moment.

As a Sovereign Nation we do have a say in who comes here ... and who doesn't.

I, for one, don't wish to face the social unrest like is currently happening in Sweden.

Nor do I wish to be like Fiji where the Indian population number 313,798 (37.6%) (2007 census) out of a total of 827,900 people living in there. Wiki

So, I'm not trying to change your thinking if you disagree with me, but it wouldn't be nice if you considered these viewpoints.

Let's give the incoming refugees a choice. Burn your identity papers and rest a few years in Papua New Guinea. Or keep your papers and prove to Australian Immigration that you indeed face political persecution of a degree which is life threatening and deserve to take your place in the UNHCR queue.

Do that, and I'll invite you to celebrate Christmas at my place ...

If the above comments tag me as a raciest in your eyes ... give me the cap and I'll wear it.

.

David, I don't know if you are misinformed or deliberately posting incorrect info. The refugees arriving by sea will be redirected to PNG & after being positively assessed with be required to settle in PNG. If they decline, I assume, they will be held in detention camps until UNHCR can place them elsewhere, but not in Australia. Again I assume Australia will have to fund the continuing detention. In the meantime as I have already stated there are only 600 places currently available for refugees in PNG.

You know that foreigners living in PNG must live in secured compounds for their safety. Who is going to pay & build secure compounds for those who accept resettlement in PNG or will they just be "set loose" & be exposed to the very well know violence and sexual assault endemic in PNG society?

Personally I do not believe the current policy will stay in-place for more than a year or so & the issues will be back to square one. As I said elsewhere the Rudd government were on the right track to work with Indonesia to reduce the number of visas on arrival for Iranians and I understand working with other governments in the region to implement the same policy.

Samran had posted the refugees resettled in rural/semi-rural areas has been a success, even in SE QLD. Perhaps the way forward is for any positively assessed refugees have to agree to this for say a minimum of five years to address the ghettoisation of refugees in the cities. In the meantime racism and bigotry in Australia could be fuel for self-fulfilling prophesy for muslim refugee disenfranchisement.

Edited July 27, 2013 by simple1

[samran]

Well said Simple1

[OzMick]

Let asylum seekers into Australia.

91% of asylum seekers were granted refugee status 2011-2012.

refugeecouncil.org.au/r/stat-as.php

Most boat people come from countries that are in civil war or in countries where Western armed forces are now active.

Most boat people would not leave their countries if they were safe,but they are not safe.

Australia's interests would be better served on a socio-economic level if we try to intergrate them into our

community,through regular employment or community progams,(not locked up).

Let's treat boat people like human beings,not animals.

Sure.......... and end up with the same problems faced by the UK, France, etc