US to accept 1,800 asylum seekers from Australia’s offshore camps, newspaper says

[webfact]

US to accept 1,800 asylum seekers from Australia’s offshore camps, newspaper says

By Asian Correspondent Staff

 

THE United States and Australia are close to announcing a deal in which the United States will resettle hundreds of asylum seekers banished by Australia to Pacific island camps, a newspaper said.

 

The Australian newspaper reported on Friday that the U.S. has agreed to accept up to 1,800 refugees held for up to three years at Australia’s expense in camps on the impoverished island nations of Nauru and Papua New Guinea.

 

The paper said the deal would effectively end Australia’s offshore detention of asylum-seekers after months of negotiations with third countries in the bid to prevent them from gaining access into the country.

 

Full story: https://asiancorrespondent.com/2016/11/us-1800-asylum-seekers-australias-offshore-camp/

 

-- ASIAN CORRESPONDENT 2016-11-11

[JAG]

That loud bang you just heard was President Elect Donald Trump...

Edited November 11, 2016 by JAG
Mong spelling

[kotsak]

[wombat]

 the impoverished island nations of Nauru and Papua New Guinea........................pmsl

 

aint no poverty no more with oz money flowing in

 

 

 

 

Edited November 11, 2016 by wombat
a mountain of gold in papua

[kowpot]

This is actually cruel. These people will not find a friendly atmosphere when and if they make it to the U.S. They will be tormented and shunned by  the American people.  The American people just won an election on the premise that this stuff will not happen. Obama throwing one last jab  at the United States.

[Andaman Al]

6 minutes ago, wombat said:

 the impoverished island nations of Nauru and Papua New Guinea........................pmsl

 

aint no poverty no more with oz money flowing in

 

 

 

 

This reminds me of the movie Avatar.  What are we doing?

[craigt3365]

9 minutes ago, kowpot said:

This is actually cruel. These people will not find a friendly atmosphere when and if they make it to the U.S. They will be tormented and shunned by  the American people.  The American people just won an election on the premise that this stuff will not happen. Obama throwing one last jab  at the United States.

Methinks you watch too much TV.  The US is a country of immigrants.  Sure, there are problems, but that's not the norm.  The neighborhood I left was extremely diverse.  No problems at all.

 

Legal immigration is OK.  Illegal immigration is not.

[simple1]

25 minutes ago, craigt3365 said:

Methinks you watch too much TV.  The US is a country of immigrants.  Sure, there are problems, but that's not the norm.  The neighborhood I left was extremely diverse.  No problems at all.

 

Legal immigration is OK.  Illegal immigration is not.

 

As a bit more detail the locals in PNG & Naura are hostile to the vetted asylum seekers, so Oz govt were looking for an alternate third party country to resettle the refugees. Plus Oz govt is completing a deal to resettle some refugees from a Central American country, I would assume there is a linkage with the US deal.

 

Edited November 11, 2016 by simple1

[craigt3365]

32 minutes ago, simple1 said:

 

As a bit more detail the locals in PNG & Naura are hostile to the vetted asylum seekers, so Oz govt were looking for an alternate third party country to resettle the refugees. Plus Oz govt is completing a deal to resettle some refugees from a Central American country, I would assume there is a linkage with the US deal.

 

I've read a bit about this.  Seems a mess!

[Usernames]

Come January, it will be time to send them back.

[optad]

Good. It needed a political solution. It is about boats and domestic Australian politics not numbers in people terms, [harshly phrased i know]. Australia will end up taking reciprocally more than the 1800 back and sucking up other deals into the equation to get this done.

 

This has a massive impact on domestic Australian affairs. Also releases finally those incarcerated refugees. It also explain the new laws Dutton presented to the senate last week. I.e. No boat person will ever come to Australia, even as a tourist in 2055. This is designed to keep the sanctity of turning back the boats alive.

 

Conservatives 2/0.

[IAMHERE]

Again American trade negotiators got the American public a bad to poor deal.

Quote

 

 

[elgordo38]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Methinks you watch too much TV.  The US is a country of immigrants.  Sure, there are problems, but that's not the norm.  The neighborhood I left was extremely diverse.  No problems at all.

 

Legal immigration is OK.  Illegal immigration is not.

I am all for legal immigration after I can walk through main street USA and not see somebody living in a cardboard house in the rain begging for coins. Look after your own first. 

[kowpot]

1 hour ago, craigt3365 said:

Methinks you watch too much TV.  The US is a country of immigrants.  Sure, there are problems, but that's not the norm.  The neighborhood I left was extremely diverse.  No problems at all.

 

Legal immigration is OK.  Illegal immigration is not.

This is not immigration. This is refugee status. I too lived most of my life in the U.S.  Refugees to the U.S. get free housing , food stamps and roughly 1700 USD per person per month.  Just think of what a family of 4 gets per month for doing absolutely nothing. Yes, they will try and find them jobs, but where? They don't have the education and they don't speak the language.  Saying I must watch too much tv is just plain ignorant on your part.  To say you came from a neighborhood that had no problems at all must be the only one in the world.  It must have been nice to live in utopia.  

[jesimps]

Cram 'em in before January.

 

[coma]

They have two months to seal that deal. When the Trumpinator is in the deal is dead. Why don't they just send them back to where they come from. Or maybe another Islamic country that has the same cultural and religious beliefs ?

[landslide]

3 hours ago, coma said:

They have two months to seal that deal. When the Trumpinator is in the deal is dead. Why don't they just send them back to where they come from. Or maybe another Islamic country that has the same cultural and religious beliefs ?

Great name, The "Trumpinator".  I am surprised that I never heard that before.

[Basil B]

Somebody better tell them not to bother unpacking as things will change Jan 20th...

[Torrens54]

9 hours ago, simple1 said:

 

As a bit more detail the locals in PNG & Naura are hostile to the vetted asylum seekers, so Oz govt were looking for an alternate third party country to resettle the refugees. Plus Oz govt is completing a deal to resettle some refugees from a Central American country, I would assume there is a linkage with the US deal.

 

Yes well, there are still some parts of PNG where from time to time, "Long Pig"...Humans do still finish up in the Cooking Pot. I have,, years ago... seen the odd Human Head on a spike at the entrance to a Highlands Village.

So, you say by sending these poor blighters to TRUMPVILLE may be a case of, "Out of The Frying Pan and INTO THE FIRE."?

[monkey4u]

10 hours ago, kowpot said:

This is actually cruel. These people will not find a friendly atmosphere when and if they make it to the U.S. They will be tormented and shunned by  the American people.  The American people just won an election on the premise that this stuff will not happen. Obama throwing one last jab  at the United States.

If not happy return to where you came from and try to get a visa next time

Not too many places want this influx of untraceable ( refugees ) 

Most dump their pass ports before landing

[simple1]

1 hour ago, monkey4u said:

If not happy return to where you came from and try to get a visa next time

Not too many places want this influx of untraceable ( refugees ) 

Most dump their pass ports before landing

 

The asylum seekers in the OP have been ID'd & verified as genuine refugees

[Scott]

9 hours ago, kowpot said:

This is not immigration. This is refugee status. I too lived most of my life in the U.S.  Refugees to the U.S. get free housing , food stamps and roughly 1700 USD per person per month.  Just think of what a family of 4 gets per month for doing absolutely nothing. Yes, they will try and find them jobs, but where? They don't have the education and they don't speak the language.  Saying I must watch too much tv is just plain ignorant on your part.  To say you came from a neighborhood that had no problems at all must be the only one in the world.  It must have been nice to live in utopia.  

This is blatantly false.   The amount of money available for refugees varies from state to state:

 

Aid to needy refugees in the U.S. is much less and is generally limited to eight months. Unlike Canada, the U.S. government doesn’t pay aid directly, but instead gives grants to states for refugee resettlement. In California, for example, the maximum cash payment to a single refugee is $359 per month, according to the state Refugee Programs Bureau. Refugee families with children can qualify for welfare under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF), and maximum levels vary widely by state. In California, one of the more generous states, the maximum for a family of three is currently $723 per month.

 

http://www.factcheck.org/2007/12/refugees-dont-get-1800-per-month/

 

 

[optad]

8 hours ago, coma said:

They have two months to seal that deal. When the Trumpinator is in the deal is dead. Why don't they just send them back to where they come from. Or maybe another Islamic country that has the same cultural and religious beliefs ?

 

• "Send back whence they came... '

 

We can't for a number of reasons. One is that asylum seekers [AS] have transited from a third country, it Indonesia. Technically, according to the UN charter they should apply for refugee status there, or first safe country in which to do so. However Indonesia is not seens as attractive and they push on. Occasionally boats are literally  'turned back' at sea if close the indonesian maritime markers and safe to do so. Reports that the Aus govt has even paid each person aboard 5000aud to agree but govt will not confirm these reports. This is not technically a breach of our commitments to the charter but it is certainly is in spirit and caused a great deal of political problems for both govts.

 

Domestic policy is that Aus govt will not be forced and a third safe country must be found. Cambodia was a disaster. Malaysia reneged. NZ seen not a s solution for numbers and proximity issues, ie boats will still come. Hence their purgatory on these island. Accepting on the mainland  encourages people smugglers, it is argued. Govt has not bent on considerable pressure to acquesease this time.

 

• find "another islamic country with the same religious and cultural belief".

 

Unfortunately here you show an uninformed perspective on their situation and indeed the plight of refugees generally. There is no safe adn willing country that fits this criteria, their fear of persecution is real, founded and not assuaged in middle east. The complexity of religious difference amongst even syrian adn iraqi is tremendous, and it will vary fifty miles on the map in those countries. In any event there is nothing left there for them to return to. These people are not so politically simple as the labels we apply to them once they are known to us as muslim. For example Saudi Arabia is a mortal foe of their idea structures. Iran too. 

 

I could work my way through the map and explain why. Indeed i work with refugees here in Australia running settlement programs. THis announcement is a good political solution to a ridiculous problem. They should have discretely been settled here but that is another topic. Given the refugees assent [and this is not a given] we will take refugees from central americans. I can see a lot of hurdles yet but at least we may be able to close these camps. Personally i like the diversification involved with our refugee numbers as atm current communities are already ring fencing some areas so to speak. 

 

Anyway, just some thoughts from the fence.

 

 

Edited November 11, 2016 by optad

[simple1]

1 hour ago, optad said:

Indonesia is not seen as attractive and they push on

 

If you're working with refugees I assume you will know that Indonesia does not permit asylum seekers to work, nor a legal system for protection of asylum seekers whilst being assessed for refugee status, thereby among other reasons Indonesia is not legally considered a 'safe country'. If you have direct knowledge and creditable links to counter my points, pleased to have a read.

Edited November 11, 2016 by simple1

[optad]

1 minute ago, simple1 said:

 

If you're working with refugees I assume you will know that Indonesia does not permit asylum seekers to work, nor a legal system for protection of asylum seekers whilst being assessed for refugee status, thereby Indonesia is not legally considered a 'safe country'. If you have direct knowledge and creditable links to counter my points, pleased to have a read.

 

I work in settlement programs domestically, your question alludes to international affairs which whilst i have sound understanding, it is not my employment purview. And never said it was. Nonetheless, we have strict restrictions on what TPV holders can do too. Work,  education all limited as is their capacity to progress whilst they are still being processed on shore [towards a PPV]. Centrelink fairly tracks their movements in order to adjust benefits or alter their arrangements should they break commitments. Attendance is a requirement to many programs we run and it is an ad hoc outcome in practice. The refugees on Manus are of course different for method of arrival and not least lived environment once processed as a genuine refugee that is, health, education in equivalent terms of AMES programs are available but work obviously is not.

 

The situation in Indonesia has always been a tricky one, if I can comment generally, in that Indonesia too has an alien immigrant issue. Indo too has never seen the necessity to arbitrage on australia's behalf. I can understand. Australia interpretes responsibilities according to its legal commitments to the UN charter not the reality on the ground in these countries. Australian policy over the years has not been kind to transit countries nor in anyway,  sympathetic or understanding of the problems these people cause transit countries; ie Indonesia, Malaysia etc. Then there are all the spurious legal arguments as to what constituents a "safe haven".

 

Australia has made it clear it only wants refugees who apply through certain channels, IOM and the UN being the primary methods. Once in Indonesia this too late for arrivees. We deserve flack for the callousness of this stance. It is harsh but can be effected because of our geo positioning if we can stop the boats.  

[simple1]

37 minutes ago, optad said:

 

I work in settlement programs domestically, your question alludes to international affairs which whilst i have sound understanding, it is not my employment purview. And never said it was. Nonetheless, we have strict restrictions on what TPV holders can do too. Work,  education all limited as is their capacity to progress whilst they are still being processed on shore [towards a PPV]. Centrelink fairly tracks their movements in order to adjust benefits or alter their arrangements should they break commitments. Attendance is a requirement to many programs we run and it is an ad hoc outcome in practice. The refugees on Manus are of course different for method of arrival and not least lived environment once processed as a genuine refugee that is, health, education in equivalent terms of AMES programs are available but work obviously is not.

 

The situation in Indonesia has always been a tricky one, if I can comment generally, in that Indonesia too has an alien immigrant issue. Indo too has never seen the necessity to arbitrage on australia's behalf. I can understand. Australia interpretes responsibilities according to its legal commitments to the UN charter not the reality on the ground in these countries. Australian policy over the years has not been kind to transit countries nor in anyway,  sympathetic or understanding of the problems these people cause transit countries; ie Indonesia, Malaysia etc. Then there are all the spurious legal arguments as to what constituents a "safe haven".

 

Australia has made it clear it only wants refugees who apply through certain channels, IOM and the UN being the primary methods. Once in Indonesia this too late for arrivees. We deserve flack for the callousness of this stance. It is harsh but can be effected because of our geo positioning if we can stop the boats.  

 

Thanks for the info

[MajarTheLion]

15 hours ago, kowpot said:

This is actually cruel. These people will not find a friendly atmosphere when and if they make it to the U.S. They will be tormented and shunned by  the American people.  The American people just won an election on the premise that this stuff will not happen. Obama throwing one last jab  at the United States.

 

Pragmatically speaking, there are several wealthy nations such as Saudi Arabia, UAE, Qatar and others where these soldiers, er, refugees will be more suited- politically, religiously and culturally. Here in the US, we don't believe in stoning women, preventing them from driving, keeping them barefoot and pregnant, nor beheading people with different religious beliefs.

[coma]

7 hours ago, landslide said:

Great name, The "Trumpinator".  I am surprised that I never heard that before.

 

Considering he declared he wasn't going to vote for him, his fellow Republican,  Arnie probably barred him from using it. Copyright and all that.

[daveAustin]

What a farce. Australia should be housing these people. In fact, they should be made to accept boats from Europe, too. Look at the size of it; there's plenty of room and monies from governments around the world can help set up camps in and around those huge bush towns. The US and Europe are already crowded, pull your weight, Oz!

[craigt3365]

15 hours ago, elgordo38 said:

I am all for legal immigration after I can walk through main street USA and not see somebody living in a cardboard house in the rain begging for coins. Look after your own first. 

A good friend's brother lives on the street.  This guy is super rich.  His brother is mentally ill.  Been trying for years to get him off the street, just can't do it. 

 

Not everybody living on the street is there because they can't find alternatives.  Some, for sure, others, no.