Boat people grateful for sanctuary, baffled by Gambia offer

[2alex4alex]

Strange really, those countries who colonialised half the world or

exterminated most of the natives of their new homeland, are the

ones with the least compassion towards refugees.

Is the robber supposed to give something back to his victims? But sure you know answer...

[JoeLing]

Strange really, those countries who colonialised half the world or

exterminated most of the natives of their new homeland, are the

ones with the least compassion towards refugees.

Many people here mention, Muslim countries should do more to

take in refugees. They obviously haven't researched anything as

Pakistan, Jordan, Turkey, Syria and Iran alone have given refuge to

more than 8'200'000 refugees out of a total of 10'500'000 refugees

worldwide.

Whilst the USA, UK, Australia, France, are the ones moaning the

most about refugees are not even taking 5% of the refugees those

5 Muslim countries are taking.

I'm fairly sure, if one would go and ask the real Australians or

Americans, they probably rather have boat loads of refugees

from Myanmar and Africa than colonialists from Europe stealing

their homeland.

Many of those countries do, indeed, allow large numbers of people to remain in their countries. Most do not have any plan to resettle them and some are housed in refugee camps with restricted movement.

But accusing many of those countries of being unhelpful is wrong.

Unlike immigrants, many refugees would rather stay at home without

worries. Sure many of them might not be rich in our western terms

but are by no means beggars.

Most refugees never imagined that tomorrow, their lives will be turned

upside down and they have to hide and run.

Refugees are not fleeing due to economics but due to fear of persecution,

mostly due to politics. Many of the million refugees did have a home, jobs

and families. Some were doctors, teachers, politicians, students, some just

farmers and children but never the less, they all suffer persecution for

whatever reason. Many refugees left their entire properties and livelihood

behind. Lost family and friends or got separated from them.

Most of them, do not want to be resettled, they just need temporary shelter.

A safe heaven where they can maintain their human dignity and don't need

to fear atrocities. They do not care if they have to live in camps with restricted

movement and will happily go back to their homes once the problems in their

homeland have been solved. Most are eager to get back home as quick as

possible, find lost relatives and try to start a new life in their own home again,

without being persecuted.

Some places, the time until refugees could go back home was only months

for others it has become decades. The average time refugees are uprooted

is around 17 years.

Most Yugoslavian refugees have returned either to Bosnia, Croatia, Kosovo,

Montenegro, Macedonia, Slovenia or Serbia within less than 2 years after

the conflict ended.

On the other side, most Tibetan refugees of the first generation have died

by now somewhere in exile, whilst their children have settled and started a

new life outside their homeland.

Sure, there are millions of refugees who will eventually need to be resettled

as the political (not economical) situation doesn't change but first, they need

shelter. Everything else can be sorted out later.

Before we even think of having resettling programs in place, we need to

useour political and economical powers to bring changes in those places,

although sanctions might harm our own economies a bit and we wouldn't

want that.

[giddyup]

Strange really, those countries who colonialised half the world or

exterminated most of the natives of their new homeland, are the

ones with the least compassion towards refugees.

Many people here mention, Muslim countries should do more to

take in refugees. They obviously haven't researched anything as

Pakistan, Jordan, Turkey, Syria and Iran alone have given refuge to

more than 8'200'000 refugees out of a total of 10'500'000 refugees

worldwide.

Whilst the USA, UK, Australia, France, are the ones moaning the

most about refugees are not even taking 5% of the refugees those

5 Muslim countries are taking.

I'm fairly sure, if one would go and ask the real Australians or

Americans, they probably rather have boat loads of refugees

from Myanmar and Africa than colonialists from Europe stealing

their homeland.

Australia has taken millions of migrants over the years, the country has been built on immigration, but they have also learned by the mistakes of others, and that is muslim migrants are trouble. They don't assimilate and they are happy to bite the hand that feeds them. Fact. As the refugees in question are already in this neck of the woods, Indonesia, Malaysia or Brunei seem more suitable to their religious persuasion.

Edited May 24, 2015 by giddyup

[JoeLing]

Strange really, those countries who colonialised half the world or

exterminated most of the natives of their new homeland, are the

ones with the least compassion towards refugees.

Many people here mention, Muslim countries should do more to

take in refugees. They obviously haven't researched anything as

Pakistan, Jordan, Turkey, Syria and Iran alone have given refuge to

more than 8'200'000 refugees out of a total of 10'500'000 refugees

worldwide.

Whilst the USA, UK, Australia, France, are the ones moaning the

most about refugees are not even taking 5% of the refugees those

5 Muslim countries are taking.

I'm fairly sure, if one would go and ask the real Australians or

Americans, they probably rather have boat loads of refugees

from Myanmar and Africa than colonialists from Europe stealing

their homeland.

Australia has taken millions of migrants over the years, the country has been built on immigration, but they have also learned by the mistakes of others, and that is muslim migrants are trouble. They don't assimilate and they are happy to bite the hand that feeds them. Fact. As the refugees in question are already in this neck of the woods, Indonesia, Malaysia or Brunei seem more suitable to their religious persuasion.

Well to be precise, Australians immigrants outnumber the native population by around 83%

and no, they have not taken in those immigrants, they invaded.

There was around 700'000 Aboriginals before those 24'000'000 immigrants arrived. Today

those Natives have been diminished to just under 100'000 people and don't have much of

as say in between all those Immigrants.

Now considering Australia has given shelter to around 23'500 refugees, that makes around

1 refugee per 1026 Non-Native Australians or 1 refugee per 4 Aboriginals - which is still less

than Jordan, where there is 1 refugee per 3 Jordanian natives.

Now compare the tiddly tinny nation of Switzerland. About 180 times smaller in size and has

less than a third of Australia's non-native natives. They are host to more than double as many

refugees than Australia is. There is around 1 refugee per 150 inhabitants.

Now if you compare refugees by capita, even if you count Australia, UK, USA and France

together, they are still a long way away from Sweden's generosity towards refugees.

I recon, first of all, you should learn the definition of migrants, immigrants, refugees and expats.

[simple1]

Strange really, those countries who colonialised half the world or

exterminated most of the natives of their new homeland, are the

ones with the least compassion towards refugees.

Many people here mention, Muslim countries should do more to

take in refugees. They obviously haven't researched anything as

Pakistan, Jordan, Turkey, Syria and Iran alone have given refuge to

more than 8'200'000 refugees out of a total of 10'500'000 refugees

worldwide.

Whilst the USA, UK, Australia, France, are the ones moaning the

most about refugees are not even taking 5% of the refugees those

5 Muslim countries are taking.

I'm fairly sure, if one would go and ask the real Australians or

Americans, they probably rather have boat loads of refugees

from Myanmar and Africa than colonialists from Europe stealing

their homeland.

Australia has taken millions of migrants over the years, the country has been built on immigration, but they have also learned by the mistakes of others, and that is muslim migrants are trouble. They don't assimilate and they are happy to bite the hand that feeds them. Fact. As the refugees in question are already in this neck of the woods, Indonesia, Malaysia or Brunei seem more suitable to their religious persuasion.

Well to be precise, Australians immigrants outnumber the native population by around 83%

and no, they have not taken in those immigrants, they invaded.

There was around 700'000 Aboriginals before those 24'000'000 immigrants arrived. Today

those Natives have been diminished to just under 100'000 people and don't have much of

as say in between all those Immigrants.

Now considering Australia has given shelter to around 23'500 refugees, that makes around

1 refugee per 1026 Non-Native Australians or 1 refugee per 4 Aboriginals - which is still less

than Jordan, where there is 1 refugee per 3 Jordanian natives.

Now compare the tiddly tinny nation of Switzerland. About 180 times smaller in size and has

less than a third of Australia's non-native natives. They are host to more than double as many

refugees than Australia is. There is around 1 refugee per 150 inhabitants.

Now if you compare refugees by capita, even if you count Australia, UK, USA and France

together, they are still a long way away from Sweden's generosity towards refugees.

I recon, first of all, you should learn the definition of migrants, immigrants, refugees and expats.

It is fair to say a statistically small number of Muslims in Australia do cause problems, but even the Oz government has accepted it has failed with it's integration / resettlement programs that led to marginalisation, resentment and so on, especially with second generation Muslim heritage Australians.

The estimated number of resettled refugees you provided is wrong, the numbers are far greater. Currently places made available, subject to assessment for suitability, around 20k p.a. Fairly detailed info on Australia's refugee / humanitarian policies & intake numbers over the years are below.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/RefugeeResettlement#_Toc410727184

I am of the opinion that Abbott's 'turn back the boats' slogan being applied to the Myanmar Rohingya refugees is ignorant and cruel.

[JoeLing]

Australia has taken millions of migrants over the years, the country has been built on immigration, but they have also learned by the mistakes of others, and that is muslim migrants are trouble. They don't assimilate and they are happy to bite the hand that feeds them. Fact. As the refugees in question are already in this neck of the woods, Indonesia, Malaysia or Brunei seem more suitable to their religious persuasion.

Well to be precise, Australians immigrants outnumber the native population by around 83%

and no, they have not taken in those immigrants, they invaded.

There was around 700'000 Aboriginals before those 24'000'000 immigrants arrived. Today

those Natives have been diminished to just under 100'000 people and don't have much of

as say in between all those Immigrants.

Now considering Australia has given shelter to around 23'500 refugees, that makes around

1 refugee per 1026 Non-Native Australians or 1 refugee per 4 Aboriginals - which is still less

than Jordan, where there is 1 refugee per 3 Jordanian natives.

Now compare the tiddly tinny nation of Switzerland. About 180 times smaller in size and has

less than a third of Australia's non-native natives. They are host to more than double as many

refugees than Australia is. There is around 1 refugee per 150 inhabitants.

Now if you compare refugees by capita, even if you count Australia, UK, USA and France

together, they are still a long way away from Sweden's generosity towards refugees.

I recon, first of all, you should learn the definition of migrants, immigrants, refugees and expats.

It is fair to say a statistically small number of Muslims in Australia do cause problems, but even the Oz government has accepted it has failed with it's integration / resettlement programs that led to marginalisation, resentment and so on, especially with second generation Muslim heritage Australians.

The estimated number of resettled refugees you provided is wrong, the numbers are far greater. Currently places made available, subject to assessment for suitability, around 20k p.a. Fairly detailed info on Australia's refugee / humanitarian policies & intake numbers over the years are below.

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1415/RefugeeResettlement#_Toc410727184

I am of the opinion that Abbott's 'turn back the boats' slogan being applied to the Myanmar Rohingya refugees is ignorant and cruel.

SIMPLE1 - You and the link you provided are talking about resettlement of refugees not immediate shelter for refugees as I mentioned. Although my numbers are not entirely up to date, I think what I quoted is from 2010, but if you want to find out how well Australia does in accepting refugees, not resettling refugees, maybe data.worldbank.org or un.org are better places to start a bit of research.

I am not too keen on quoting Wikipedia but they do have a pretty good chart with refugee statistics and I don't mean resettled refugees but people with immediate need for shelter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_refugee_population

[Scott]

I think we should stick to the topic of the thread and not get into arguing details about participating countries and what they do/don't do. The laws of some countries make it very, very difficult to allow asylum seekers on shore and then remove them if they are not refugees. Many of these countries pay substantial amounts of money to other countries to house them.

In addition, numerous countries are generous with their contributions to the UN and the UNHCR as well as NGO's involved in the refugee area.

This topic, however, is not about that.