Australia expects to resettle hundreds of refugees elsewhere

[webfact]

Australia expects to resettle hundreds of refugees elsewhere 
ROD McGUIRK, Associated Press

 

CANBERRA, Australia (AP) — Australia will find another country to resettle hundreds of asylum seekers now held on poor Pacific islands, a minister said Tuesday as his government planned to banish for life refugees who arrive by boat.

 

Immigration Minister Peter Dutton declined to identify countries with which Australia is negotiating to accept almost 1,300 asylum seekers from Africa, the Middle East and Asia who are kept at Australia's expense in camps at Nauru and Papua New Guinea.

 

"We have been in negotiation with third countries for a long period of time and we are going to land a deal," Dutton told reporters, referring to countries that are neither the asylum seekers' homelands nor the country where they are currently kept.

 

The Australian newspaper reported last week that the United States and Canada could be among the countries that will accept Australia's asylum seekers.

 

Few refugees have accepted offers to resettle in Papua New Guinea and Cambodia because most hope that Australia will eventually take them in.

 

Australia refuses to resettle any refugee who has arrived by boat since the date the tough policy was announced, July 19, 2013.

 

The government also introduced to Parliament legislation that would ban such refugees from ever visiting Australia as a tourist, to do business or as an Australian's spouse.

 

"This legislation sends a strong message to people smugglers and those considering traveling illegally to Australia by boat that Australia's borders are now stronger than ever," Dutton told Parliament.

 

But the center-left opposition Labor Party said it will not support the legislation. Without Labor's backing in the Senate, the conservative government will need to persuade independent and minor-party senators to make the bill law.

 

"The idea that a citizen of the United States or Canada or New Zealand faces a lifetime ban preventing them from visiting Australia in 30 or 40 years' time is simply unacceptable," Labor leader Bill Shorten said.

 

Australia has rejected a New Zealand offer to resettle 150 refugees. One of Australia's reasons is that those refugees could then become New Zealand citizens and be entitled to live in Australia without a visa under the rules of the close bilateral relationship.

 

New Zealand Prime Minister John Key last week talked down the prospect of a deal that would ban refugees accepted by New Zealand from ever traveling to Australia.

 

"We're not going to be in the process of creating different classes of New Zealand citizens," Key said.

 

-- © Associated Press 2016-11-08

[Credo]

New Zealand offer to take 150 and Australia says no?   I would think that would be an infringement on New Zealand's sovereignty as well as UN covenants on resettlement.   

 

If I didn't know better, I'd think that Australia really doesn't like refugees very much.   

[simple1]

56 minutes ago, Credo said:

New Zealand offer to take 150 and Australia says no?   I would think that would be an infringement on New Zealand's sovereignty as well as UN covenants on resettlement.   

 

If I didn't know better, I'd think that Australia really doesn't like refugees very much.   

 

it will be interesting if other countries such as the US & Canada take the same position as NZ. A matter not mentioned in the OP is Oz is considering taking refugees from a Central American country in a 'swap deal". In the meantime off shore detention is costing the Oz govt $500k p.a. for each detainee.

[Roadman]

Thank you Australia and Peter Dutton. Dont let them anywhere near Aussie or NZ through the Key backdoor or we will both be another Europe. If you want to come here as a migrant then get in line like everyone else and stop using the refugee bullcrap.

Bit rich for a Labour government to be grizzling about the minor points of keeping them out of Aussie when they were the ones who initially started the camps. 

Edited November 8, 2016 by Roadman

[Baerboxer]

1 hour ago, Roadman said:

Thank you Australia and Peter Dutton. Dont let them anywhere near Aussie or NZ through the Key backdoor or we will both be another Europe. If you want to come here as a migrant then get in line like everyone else and stop using the refugee bullcrap.

Bit rich for a Labour government to be grizzling about the minor points of keeping them out of Aussie when they were the ones who initially started the camps. 

 

Yes, paying the people traffickers who were illegally smuggling them to take them off somewhere else doesn't seem to work so let's try and 'sell" them to some poor country who needs the money.

 

Australia - young and free! And giving political hypocrisy a whole new dimension.

[giddyup]

58 minutes ago, Baerboxer said:

 

Yes, paying the people traffickers who were illegally smuggling them to take them off somewhere else doesn't seem to work so let's try and 'sell" them to some poor country who needs the money.

 

Australia - young and free! And giving political hypocrisy a whole new dimension.

The "refugees" wanted their freedom, it shouldn't matter where they get located, as long as they are no longer in danger. Unless of course they are "economic refugees", that's a different story.

[louse1953]

2 hours ago, Roadman said:

Thank you Australia and Peter Dutton. Dont let them anywhere near Aussie or NZ through the Key backdoor or we will both be another Europe. If you want to come here as a migrant then get in line like everyone else and stop using the refugee bullcrap.

Bit rich for a Labour government to be grizzling about the minor points of keeping them out of Aussie when they were the ones who initially started the camps. 

It has been well established that there is no line and no passport in some countries.Escaping with their life is the best they can do.Dutton the Muppett is just pandering to the Abbott faction and Hansen voters.

[louse1953]

8 minutes ago, giddyup said:

The "refugees" wanted their freedom, it shouldn't matter where they get located, as long as they are no longer in danger. Unless of course they are "economic refugees", that's a different story.

They are in danger of going mad,especially the kids.Disgraceful behaviour by Australia.

[biggles45]

louse, the majority of the "refugees" transit through Indonesia or Malaysia where they have often stayed for a long time. Both of thse countries have an oz embassy where they could apply to get in the queue 

[shadmo63]

 
it will be interesting if other countries such as the US & Canada take the same position as NZ. A matter not mentioned in the OP is Oz is considering taking refugees from a Central American country in a 'swap deal". In the meantime off shore detention is costing the Oz govt $500k p.a. for each detainee.

Not to mention the $55.5 million Cambodia solution that resettled exactly 4 refugees. Dutton is a f..king muppet.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[DoctorG]

The problem with the NZ solution is that Aust has a unique agreement with NZ that allows its citizens to live and work freely in Aust.. It therefore represents a back door immigration to Aust.

 

[shadmo63]

The problem with the NZ solution is that Aust has a unique agreement with NZ that allows its citizens to live and work freely in Aust.. It therefore represents a back door immigration to Aust.
 

Yes, but you are just repeating what is in the opening article (that you obviously didn't quite finish reading).


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[simple1]

31 minutes ago, biggles45 said:

louse, the majority of the "refugees" transit through Indonesia or Malaysia where they have often stayed for a long time. Both of thse countries have an oz embassy where they could apply to get in the queue 

 

The Oz Embassy does not process refugee applications. Asylum seekers must apply for refugee status via UNHCR. In Indonesia and Malaysia. Asylum seekers are not legally permitted to work and minimal access to support. As neither Indo or Malaysia are signatories to the UN Refugee Convention they would have little access to legal protection from exploitation.

 

Although it's somewhat out of date the article below sheds some details regards the situation in Indonesia

 

"the proportion of registered refugees who succeed in being resettled from Indonesia is less than two percent"

 

http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2015/09/10/indonesia-has-better-option-refugee-issue.html

 

 

[williamgeorgeallen]

5 hours ago, Credo said:

New Zealand offer to take 150 and Australia says no?   I would think that would be an infringement on New Zealand's sovereignty as well as UN covenants on resettlement.   

 

If I didn't know better, I'd think that Australia really doesn't like refugees very much.   

oz takes about 30 000 refugees a year. nz takes 750. nz is nicely insulated from the whole mess. the refugees need to be considered as a separate entity and given long term visas that are easy to revoke if they miss behave.

[shadmo63]

oz takes about 30 000 refugees a year. nz takes 750. nz is nicely insulated from the whole mess. the refugees need to be considered as a separate entity and given long term visas that are easy to revoke if they miss behave.

Actually it's been 13-14,000 the last few years. Turnbull has proposed to lift it to 19-20,000. The numbers have been almost constant between 12-15,000 for 30 odd years. Total immigrant intake has doubled or tripled in the same period to 190,000. Unfortunately the public focus of the issue has been on boat people and detention centres since it became politicised by Little Johnny and Peter Reith using it to score political points by 'protecting our borders' during the 'children overboard' fiasco. As you allude to, in the big picture on this issue, Australia is quite a good world citizen, but only if we ignore the political point scoring and deplorable treatment in detention centres and turning back boats policy.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[ddavidovsky]

They've probably been on Nauru so long that their countries of origin have probably now improved so they can be sent back. Sorted.

[Grubster]

Australia can make its own decisions and only the Australian voters should be able to do anything about it.

[williamgeorgeallen]

2 hours ago, shadmo63 said:

Actually it's been 13-14,000 the last few years. Turnbull has proposed to lift it to 19-20,000. The numbers have been almost constant between 12-15,000 for 30 odd years. Total immigrant intake has doubled or tripled in the same period to 190,000. Unfortunately the public focus of the issue has been on boat people and detention centres since it became politicised by Little Johnny and Peter Reith using it to score political points by 'protecting our borders' during the 'children overboard' fiasco. As you allude to, in the big picture on this issue, Australia is quite a good world citizen, but only if we ignore the political point scoring and deplorable treatment in detention centres and turning back boats policy.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

just looked it up and it seems your right at around 15000 per year. i lived in australia for 10 years and immigration is a hot issue. the fact pauline hanson gets any support shows what an issue it all is. australias  falling birth rate is a problem along with the rest of the western world. na and oz need to keep some conservative approach without letting population fall.

[williamgeorgeallen]

18 minutes ago, Grubster said:

Australia can make its own decisions and only the Australian voters should be able to do anything about it.

if it was up to Australians there would be zero immigration and the population would decline along with the economy.

[Grubster]

2 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

if it was up to Australians there would be zero immigration and the population would decline along with the economy.

There will be nothing wrong with a decline in population anywhere, I would gladly suffer a bad economy for that.

[gamini]

All the millions of dollars that Australia has spent building concentration camps on far-off islands as well as  huge amounts  in patrolling the coastline to stop a few refugees coming into the country. This money would have been much better used to resettle them in the underpopulated country. Australia could easily take in one million refugees or more and they would be a credit to the country.

[williamgeorgeallen]

10 hours ago, Grubster said:

There will be nothing wrong with a decline in population anywhere, I would gladly suffer a bad economy for that.

i agree. over population of the world is the biggest problem mankind faces. governments and policy makers dont last long in poorly preforming economies however.

[giddyup]

17 hours ago, louse1953 said:

They are in danger of going mad,especially the kids.Disgraceful behaviour by Australia.

As long as it stops more boats coming, it's the right deterrent. Or would you rather see hundreds more "refugees" drowned at sea?

[shadmo63]

As long as it stops more boats coming, it's the right deterrent. Or would you rather see hundreds more "refugees" drowned at sea?

Do you think that a lift in the quality of treatment in off-shore detention centres, especially of children, will result in hundreds more refugees drowned at sea? I think both aims can be achieved. The end does not justify the means.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[giddyup]

13 minutes ago, shadmo63 said:

Do you think that a lift in the quality of treatment in off-shore detention centres, especially of children, will result in hundreds more refugees drowned at sea? I think both aims can be achieved. The end does not justify the means.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

There's only a few hundred left in detention centres, once they have been relocated to other countries, or their home country, the problem will be solved. No more deaths at sea, and no more traumatised kids in detention centres. Win win.

[connda]

With a Trump victory, I wonder if US progressives will be granted 'refugee' status.  They'll be resettle in mainland AU as long as they don't show up in a boat.

Edited November 9, 2016 by connda

[shadmo63]

With a Trump victory, I wonder if US progressives will be granted 'refugee' status.  They'll be resettle in mainland AU as long as they don't show up in a boat.

Yes just get in the bloody queue and she'll be apples.


Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[Grubster]

11 hours ago, williamgeorgeallen said:

i agree. over population of the world is the biggest problem mankind faces. governments and policy makers dont last long in poorly preforming economies however.

Economy rules. Nothing else matters.