3 ms·

> Australia under Tony Abbot runs concentration camps for victims of famine, civil war on Nauru They are called "refugee camps". And Australia has a reasonably

by wisty 13y ago

> Australia under Tony Abbot runs concentration camps for victims of famine, civil war on Nauru They are called "refugee camps". And Australia has a reasonably high refugee intake. Unlike most countries, though, Australia resettles most of their refugees, so they aren't classified as "refugees" anymore. It's a pain finding the numbers, since everyone wants to talk about "refugees per head of population". There's hundreds of thousands of former refugees with PR or citizenship who aren't counting in Australia's "refugee population", because they've actually been resettled. Though you'd be perfectly justified in pointing out that Abbott cut the refugee intake, quite dramatically. Or that beating up on "boat people" was just making them a scapegoat, trying to placate the wider concern about overpopulation and immigration in general (which politicians won't touch, because the Treasury Intergenerational Report says Australia needs lots of young immigrants to keep the economy going as the baby boomers start going gaga).

jacalata 13y ago
That doesn't make any sense. Refugee applications/admittals are normally counted per year. A refugee who was awarded citizenship/residency would be counted in that year. But there are very few of them (certainly not hundreds of thousands) since Howard introduced the TPV in '99, and anyway who cares? Do you also need to know how many Australians are descended from 1 pound Poms to see how many refugees we should allow in this year? Does the refugee policy in the '80s being reasonable somehow excuse how awful it is today? You should know that 'resettlement' actually means 'sending to a third country', and yes we do resettle more refugees than anyone but the USA and Canada. That doesn't get counted in our refugee population because we sent them to another country.
- wisty 13y ago
  > Refugee applications/admittals are normally counted per year. Yes, but whenever someone says "Australia has less refugees than Germany", they are talking about total displaced persons. Germany rarely grants PR or citizenship to refugees, because they are mostly on TPVs (thus still refugees). > You should know that 'resettlement' actually means 'sending to a third country', and yes we do resettle more refugees than anyone but the USA and Canada. That doesn't get counted in our refugee population because we sent them to another country. Bullshit. Australia is the third country which they are resettled to. Australia (and the US, and Canada, and a couple of EU countries) accept the vast bulk of resettlements.
  - jacalata 13y ago
    Hm, perhaps. I'm not sure I agree that this changes the discussion much, because Germany does end up with many of them staying in the country for years on those temporary visas with government support, and also has a much much larger population of actually 'illegal' immigrants (people who were denied status or never applied) who remain there long term. It depends on the point being argued, I guess. On the second point - you're right. I was thinking of the use of the term to cover the resettlement of refugees to Papua New Guinea under our new programs, but it goes both ways and the 'one of the top countries' is referring to the refugees we accept.

by wisty 13y ago

jacalata 13y ago

That doesn't make any sense. Refugee applications/admittals are normally counted per year. A refugee who was awarded citizenship/residency would be counted in that year. But there are very few of them (certainly not hundreds of thousands) since Howard introduced the TPV in '99, and anyway who cares? Do you also need to know how many Australians are descended from 1 pound Poms to see how many refugees we should allow in this year? Does the refugee policy in the '80s being reasonable somehow excuse how awful it is today? You should know that 'resettlement' actually means 'sending to a third country', and yes we do resettle more refugees than anyone but the USA and Canada. That doesn't get counted in our refugee population because we sent them to another country.

wisty 13y ago
> Refugee applications/admittals are normally counted per year. Yes, but whenever someone says "Australia has less refugees than Germany", they are talking about total displaced persons. Germany rarely grants PR or citizenship to refugees, because they are mostly on TPVs (thus still refugees). > You should know that 'resettlement' actually means 'sending to a third country', and yes we do resettle more refugees than anyone but the USA and Canada. That doesn't get counted in our refugee population because we sent them to another country. Bullshit. Australia is the third country which they are resettled to. Australia (and the US, and Canada, and a couple of EU countries) accept the vast bulk of resettlements.
- jacalata 13y ago
  Hm, perhaps. I'm not sure I agree that this changes the discussion much, because Germany does end up with many of them staying in the country for years on those temporary visas with government support, and also has a much much larger population of actually 'illegal' immigrants (people who were denied status or never applied) who remain there long term. It depends on the point being argued, I guess. On the second point - you're right. I was thinking of the use of the term to cover the resettlement of refugees to Papua New Guinea under our new programs, but it goes both ways and the 'one of the top countries' is referring to the refugees we accept.