Refugees for sale ? Cambodia government just can't resist the money...

[jpinx]

One can only be amazed at the inappropriateness of Australia paying another country to take it's unwanted refugees. Why on earth do they not spend the same money in some infrastructure and social programmes to integrate people? Will they start to export the aborigines next year ???

Meanwhile there's a lot of hand-rubbing in PP as they divvy-up the spoils. The refugees will take their place along with the thousands of dis-enfranchised Cambodians - and that is not going to end well.

Did Australia actually send anyone to see for themselves what life is like for the poor people there? The mind boggles at the ineptitude. They have a GDP of about US$1000 per person (Thailand is US$5000) and the Australians are going to hand over a huge wad of cash. Does *anyone* believe that this money will be used for the refugees?

Australia-Cambodia agree asylum deal

[JockPieandBeans]

JPinx

I think if you dig deep enough, around the late 70's or early 80's you will find that the UK Government started taking in large numbers of refugees etc, because of the money they received from the EU on a per head basis.

So it is not just a Cambodia thing.

[giddyup]

These refugees are supposed to be seeking freedom from persecution not a better economic existence, which usually means freeloading off the Australian taxpayer. So, what difference Australia or Cambodia? Most of these "refugees" come from Islamic countries, and quite honestly the last thing Australia needs is more muslims, especially with the current political situation in Iraq and Syria. Would you like to see Australia with the same muslim problems as France and the UK? Integrate? Muslims don't understand the word.

Edited September 27, 2014 by giddyup

[Rooo]

Moved to world news.

[jpinx]

JPinx

I think if you dig deep enough, around the late 70's or early 80's you will find that the UK Government started taking in large numbers of refugees etc, because of the money they received from the EU on a per head basis.

So it is not just a Cambodia thing.

Agreed - but I think it stretches credence beyond believe that there is any comparison of the refugees conditions or application of the funds received.

Edited September 27, 2014 by jpinx

[giddyup]

JPinx

I think if you dig deep enough, around the late 70's or early 80's you will find that the UK Government started taking in large numbers of refugees etc, because of the money they received from the EU on a per head basis.

So it is not just a Cambodia thing.

Agreed - but I think it stretches credence beyond believe that there is any comparison of the refugees conditions or application of the funds received.

We all know that these "refugees" pay people smugglers thousands of dollars to get passage to Australia, when they could have asked for asylum in a much closer country. Why? I'll tell you, because they aren't going to get free housing, free medical and very generous welfare payments in Indonesia or Malaysia. So let's tell it how it really is instead of trying to make Australia the bad guy here.

Edited September 27, 2014 by giddyup

[JockPieandBeans]

JPinx

I think if you dig deep enough, around the late 70's or early 80's you will find that the UK Government started taking in large numbers of refugees etc, because of the money they received from the EU on a per head basis.

So it is not just a Cambodia thing.

Agreed - but I think it stretches credence beyond believe that there is any comparison of the refugees conditions or application of the funds received.

We all know that these "refugees" pay people smugglers thousands of dollars to get passage to Australia, when they could have asked for asylum in a much closer country. Why? I'll tell you, because they aren't going to get free housing, free medical and very generous welfare payments in Indonesia or Malaysia. So let's tell it how it really is instead of trying to make Australia the bad guy here.

Giddyup

How could you suggest such a thing

Samran will be along to chastise you shortly, it just cannot be true

[jpinx]

JPinx

I think if you dig deep enough, around the late 70's or early 80's you will find that the UK Government started taking in large numbers of refugees etc, because of the money they received from the EU on a per head basis.

So it is not just a Cambodia thing.

Agreed - but I think it stretches credence beyond believe that there is any comparison of the refugees conditions or application of the funds received.

We all know that these "refugees" pay people smugglers thousands of dollars to get passage to Australia, when they could have asked for asylum in a much closer country. Why? I'll tell you, because they aren't going to get free housing, free medical and very generous welfare payments in Indonesia or Malaysia.

The usual "deal" is that the "refugee" gets passage from one of the people smuggling gangs on promise to pay an amount when they get to the "promised land". Meanwhile the gangs have the remaining family as hostages. That's how it worked out of Africa before.

How they become refugees is immaterial -- they are found/rescued in Australian waters so Australia has to do the right thing.

Edited September 27, 2014 by jpinx

[giddyup]

JPinx

I think if you dig deep enough, around the late 70's or early 80's you will find that the UK Government started taking in large numbers of refugees etc, because of the money they received from the EU on a per head basis.

So it is not just a Cambodia thing.

Agreed - but I think it stretches credence beyond believe that there is any comparison of the refugees conditions or application of the funds received.

We all know that these "refugees" pay people smugglers thousands of dollars to get passage to Australia, when they could have asked for asylum in a much closer country. Why? I'll tell you, because they aren't going to get free housing, free medical and very generous welfare payments in Indonesia or Malaysia.

The usual "deal" is that the "refugee" gets passage from one of the people smuggling gangs on promise to pay an amount when they get to the "promised land". Meanwhile the gangs have the remaining family as hostages. That's how it worked out of Africa before.

How they become refugees is immaterial -- they are found/rescued in Australian waters so Australia has to do the right thing.

"Doing the right thing" for a bunch of queue jumping free-loaders will only encourage more to come. Even a blind man could see that. BTW, I noticed that you chose to ignore the reason as to why they didn't choose a country closer to home.

Edited September 27, 2014 by giddyup

[JockPieandBeans]

JPinx

I think if you dig deep enough, around the late 70's or early 80's you will find that the UK Government started taking in large numbers of refugees etc, because of the money they received from the EU on a per head basis.

So it is not just a Cambodia thing.

Agreed - but I think it stretches credence beyond believe that there is any comparison of the refugees conditions or application of the funds received.

Purely on a balance and needs against conditions or funds.

Probably a fair bargain was struck by both Countries.

[Keesters]

Send them back to where they came from and use the same money that would have been spent on relocating them to give them a better and unpersecuted life there. If we're not careful we could end up with a huge % of the worlds population living in just a few countries.

[halloween]

I think jpinx has completely missed the aim of the process which is to remove the pot of gold from the end of the rainbow. Economic immigrants are quite willing to pay traffickers and take risks for the benefits they receive if and when they are allowed to stay. Removing that benefit while providing a safe haven for those actually in fear of their lives completely removes that impetus - I am yet to hear of economic immigrants rushing to enter Cambodia.

Remember that much of the illegal immigration is actually funded from within Oz by previous arrivals quite happy to break Australian law.

[jpinx]

I think jpinx has completely missed the aim of the process which is to remove the pot of gold from the end of the rainbow. Economic immigrants are quite willing to pay traffickers and take risks for the benefits they receive if and when they are allowed to stay. Removing that benefit while providing a safe haven for those actually in fear of their lives completely removes that impetus - I am yet to hear of economic immigrants rushing to enter Cambodia.

Remember that much of the illegal immigration is actually funded from within Oz by previous arrivals quite happy to break Australian law.

I agree - there are actually very few true refugees - they are almost to a man driven by economics. What I don't understand is why Australia and other "host" countries can not spend this money on learning how to categorise the refugees and send the economic chancers home.

How many of the refugees are women - with or without kids? The perception is that it is a male-dominated process, which makes it smell of economics.

[giddyup]

I think jpinx has completely missed the aim of the process which is to remove the pot of gold from the end of the rainbow. Economic immigrants are quite willing to pay traffickers and take risks for the benefits they receive if and when they are allowed to stay. Removing that benefit while providing a safe haven for those actually in fear of their lives completely removes that impetus - I am yet to hear of economic immigrants rushing to enter Cambodia.

Remember that much of the illegal immigration is actually funded from within Oz by previous arrivals quite happy to break Australian law.

I agree - there are actually very few true refugees - they are almost to a man driven by economics. What I don't understand is why Australia and other "host" countries can not spend this money on learning how to categorise the refugees and send the economic chancers home.

How many of the refugees are women - with or without kids? The perception is that it is a male-dominated process, which makes it smell of economics.

Whenever pictures are shown of boats full of asylum seekers, certainly by far, the majority appear to be men.

Edited September 27, 2014 by giddyup

[JockPieandBeans]

I think jpinx has completely missed the aim of the process which is to remove the pot of gold from the end of the rainbow. Economic immigrants are quite willing to pay traffickers and take risks for the benefits they receive if and when they are allowed to stay. Removing that benefit while providing a safe haven for those actually in fear of their lives completely removes that impetus - I am yet to hear of economic immigrants rushing to enter Cambodia.

Remember that much of the illegal immigration is actually funded from within Oz by previous arrivals quite happy to break Australian law.

I agree - there are actually very few true refugees - they are almost to a man driven by economics. What I don't understand is why Australia and other "host" countries can not spend this money on learning how to categorise the refugees and send the economic chancers home.

How many of the refugees are women - with or without kids? The perception is that it is a male-dominated process, which makes it smell of economics.

Certainly in the case of the UK, it is a male dominated process.

It then appears to split into a double pathway.

A large number getting married to locals. Although the sham marriages have been cracked down on. Most normal people have known that this has been going on for decades.

The others play the longer game, sitting tight until they get some form of residency and then slowly start shipping over their extended families.

I fail to see how it would be any different in Australia.

Just to add. If you applied the correct definition of Asylum seeker or Refugee. How many of these people are legitimate Asylum Seekers or Refugees.

Edited September 28, 2014 by JockPieandBeans

[Berkshire]

As an American with our own illegal alien problem, I don't want to come down too harshly on the Aussies. But if Thailand had done such a thing, the usual bashers would be out in force proclaiming it to be inhumane, outrageous, and flatout unbelievable. On the face of it, it certainly does seem rather bizarre that an advanced economy such as Australia would do such a thing. As for the money, I'd be surprised if the refugees even see half of it. The Cambodian government is known to be rather corrupt. The top cronies must feel like they've just won the lottery.

[farangbigwig]

35 million fo ra few hundred refugees , thats a few hundred lexus for a few hundred cambo pollies

[giddyup]

As an American with our own illegal alien problem, I don't want to come down too harshly on the Aussies. But if Thailand had done such a thing, the usual bashers would be out in force proclaiming it to be inhumane, outrageous, and flatout unbelievable. On the face of it, it certainly does seem rather bizarre that an advanced economy such as Australia would do such a thing. As for the money, I'd be surprised if the refugees even see half of it. The Cambodian government is known to be rather corrupt. The top cronies must feel like they've just won the lottery.

The idea is to deter the illegal queue jumpers, the majority of whom are muslim, and who are not fleeing any kind of persecution as the left-wingers would have you believe, but seeking a comfortable existence, compliments of the Australian taxpayer. The reason you have thousands of illegal immigrants crossing your borders (America) every day is because there is no deterrent for them not to do so. I just thank god that Australia is relatively remote and we don't have to suffer the same fate as Italy, where thousands of north Africans turn up by sea. Let them sort out their own mess at home instead of piggybacking on cultures and economies who will eventually collapse under this tidal wave. What's even more distressing is that most of the people who are flooding to western nations are the ones who hate us the most.