[Ahovking]

Relocation Of Refugees In Rural Australia or the triple R Solution.

The idea is this,

Welcome all Refugees into Australia and categorise them into two groups

(Group 1) Temporally Refugee Citizen (T.R.C): Refugees who wish to come to Australia but some day wish to return to their home country.

(Group 2) Pre-Australian Citizen (P.A.C): Refugees who wish to come to Australia to live and who do not wish to return to their homeland.

When a Refugees arrives to Australia they will be categorise into two groups (P.A.C or T.R.C) in which they will be then Relocation to an massive camps. These camps will have anything, Schools, shops, theatres, universities etc. and will be located across rural Australia.

T.R.C will then be able to get jobs and get payed at small factors controlled and funded by the federal goverment to produce products for small business/consumers etc, until which time they can then return in their own time return to their own country.

T.R.C Members under the age of 40 will have to learn either a trade or go to school/universities once pass they can then go and do the Citizenship
test which then if passed they can move freely to anywhere in Australia or choose to stay as Australian Citizens.

Everyone (Both P.A.C or T.R.C) will pay tax's, These camps will also be open to most business to sell their products this includes everything from Faster Internet, Foxtel to Furniture.

Illegal drugs as well as alcohol will be ban and there will be a large police force backed up by a small military force's to combat riots and if worst comes to worst a full blown uprising.

In Schools, local news papers, theatres etc. there will be an focus on Australian propaganda to try and rise pride to be in and becoming an Australian.

(I havent thought everything out and would like to hear your thought on this idea.)

[Oxymoron]

Send them to the outback, let them catch crocodiles and Kangaroos

[neopagan]

Relocation Of Refugees In Rural Australia or the triple R Solution.

The idea is this,

Welcome all Refugees into Australia and categorise them into two groups.

Do you have any idea how many millions of people qualify as Refugees? I don't think we should welcome all of them. It seems impractical to me.

I would say the first thing Australia needs to do is decide what kind of demographic mix we want to see in the population.

Are we talking about equal percentages of people from all nations, or cultures, or races. I don't like that kind of social engineering left to pompous profession politicians and bureaucrats. They will be living in multi-million dollar residences far from the reality of their decisions.

We need to withdraw from UN agreements on refugees and have our own Nation policy which answers to no one but the electorate.

We need to confront Indonesia an this question, and back up our decisions with real force.

In my view, Australia should have an immigration policy that favours National quotas, but is especially sympathetic to Pacific Islanders who face serious problems with over population and rising sea levels.

Any immigrant should understand and agree to Australian values based on English Common Law on pain of deportation.

And finally, there should be a moratorium on the immigration of Muslims until they acknowledge the good sense and necessity of pluralism in Australia and the world.

[AFAIK]

1st you should clarify the difference between immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees otherwise the thread will be dragged off topic.

An immigrant is someone who permanently or semi permanently changes their address most commonly for work, marriage, education or retirement.
An asylum seeker is someone who requests help in evading political persecution or violence at their home.
A refugee is someone who has successfully gained the protection that they requested.

So assuming that the process of seeking asylum remains the same it seems reasonable that the state should be able to direct where refugees would live within the country.

In Schools, local news papers, theatres etc. there will be an focus on Australian propaganda to try and rise pride to be in and becoming an Australian.

If the goal is to assimilate people why are you segregating them in rural camps? I also get the impression that your proposal is inflexible. Why not direct refugees to areas of the country/ economy that are facing labour shortages? Then they would have the opportunity to live and work alongside other Australians.

[jessupjonesjnr87]

That all sounds great but it would cost a bomb and refugees would flood to Australia from all over the world.

[AFAIK]

That all sounds great but it would cost a bomb and immigrants would flood to Australia from all over the world.

We're discussing the treatment of refugees. Immigration policy is a separate issue.

[slybaldguy]

Force them into mild slavery but give them the option to return home at any time.

[Ahovking]

I would say the first thing Australia needs to do is decide what kind of demographic mix we want to see in the population.
Are we talking about equal percentages of people from all nations, or cultures, or races. I don't like that kind of social engineering left to pompous profession politicians and bureaucrats. They will be living in multi-million dollar residences far from the reality of their decisions.

I agree, i think it would be very important ensure ethnic Australians stay the majority.

In terms of percentages, first comes, first serves.

We need to withdraw from UN agreements on refugees and have our own Nation policy which answers to no one but the electorate.

Agreed

We need to confront Indonesia an this question, and back up our decisions with real force.

In 20 - 50 years Indonesia will be far more powerful (economical & militarily) than Australia, This is why its important for Australia to grow its population fast. Currently if we confront Indonesia (and create some tension) it could come back and bit us when they become 5th largest economy in the world.

By accepting 'Refugees' while not steeping on Indonesia toes we can avoiding future tensions and help our population grow faster.

Any immigrant should understand and agree to Australian values based on English Common Law on pain of deportation.

Thats one of the reasons for these camps to give them the taste of Australia and her laws and to see if the immigrant can obey and respect Australian values and laws.

If the goal is to assimilate people why are you segregating them in rural camps? I also get the impression that your proposal is inflexible. Why not direct refugees to areas of the country/ economy that are facing labour shortages? Then they would have the opportunity to live and work alongside other Australians.

We segregate them in Camps so they can be slowly introduce to Australia and our values and laws and be brought some sort of skill, so when they finish and graduate and become Australian citizens they then can be moved to areas of the country/ economy that are facing labour shortages.

Force them into mild slavery but give them the option to return home at any time.

That basically sum's up the Temporally Refugee Citizen (T.R.C)

[neopagan]

We're discussing the treatment of refugees. Immigration policy is a separate issue.

I cannot agree. Refugee policy is a sub-policy of the overall Immigration Policy. The status of refugees arriving illegally is the election issue, and these boat-people are confused by arriving aboard boats with others who are merely looking for a better place to live. Sorting this out is the duty of the Minister for Immigration.

[foxdemon]

1st you should clarify the difference between immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees otherwise the thread will be dragged off topic.

An immigrant is someone who permanently or semi permanently changes their address most commonly for work, marriage, education or retirement.
An asylum seeker is someone who requests help in evading political persecution or violence at their home.
A refugee is someone who has successfully gained the protection that they requested.

So assuming that the process of seeking asylum remains the same it seems reasonable that the state should be able to direct where refugees would live within the country.

It is important to make clear what the different categories are. But it is still part of immigration overall. Also, the single category fro immigrants is too simple. The government has quite strict categories here also. We are talking about the poltics of immigration, so I think it is worth looking at the full spectrum of government policies. This matters for finding sensible solutions. I'll get back to this in a moment.

If the goal is to assimilate people why are you segregating them in rural camps? I also get the impression that your proposal is inflexible. Why not direct refugees to areas of the country/ economy that are facing labour shortages? Then they would have the opportunity to live and work alongside other Australians.

You hit the nail on the head with the basic problem. It is very difficult under the present economic ideology to be able to provide close to full employment. In the last two decades or so refugees have often been left to fend for themselves in their own enclaves. They often struggle to find work and youthful male refugees tend to become involved in gangs. This is part of the reason why some many Australians are becoming uncomfortable with further Asylum seeker arrivals. Of course many refugees are flown in by the government, so you'd think that Australians would have informed themselves enough to be aware of this.


Now what I have explained is also the case for many young Australians. The young males often fail to find employment and get involved in gangs. Now these various gangs like to fight each other, rob people, and some eventually become more professional. There is a lot of gangland shooting going on in Sydney at present.


So the economy is failing to absorb young males into gainful employment with the result that a violent underclass is forming. More refugees which can't be employed is only going to add to the problem. But see, here is where we can bring other government immigration policy into focus.


Immigrants are split into various categories. One of those categories is the skilled labour program. Rather than pay the cost of training youths and refugees, the government and industry prefer to import already skilled people to fill labour shortages. This is part of the reason why the economy is failing the young, refugees or anyone else trying to break into the labour market. The employers, who government supports, want free skills, they don't want to pay for the skills in the workforce they want to earn their profit from.


The policies have been crafted to the advantage of the business community without regard to issues of broader social cohesion and long term consequences of ignoring that issue. These policies are intended to save a few bucks for the owning class in the here and now. Given so many youth are unable to break into this tough labour market, it is not responsible to add refugees to the long line of people waiting for an opportunity.


Of course we could argue that all we need to do is change the political economy of Australia and then we can find a place for refugees. The present system just won't cope. As I pointed out, it really has to change as it isn't coping with youth either. So it is a failure anyway as it is unsustainable.


Now I should point out that the political economy of Australia is in no way unique in today's world. The neo-liberal ideology is dominate just about everywhere. It could also be claimed that this ideology has a lot to answer for in creating circumstances where nations fail and people must flee the resulting unrest and political oppression.


Some westerners have suggested less refuges and more aid to poorer countries. This is nonsense, window dressing at best. What is needed is an enormous change in the way the global economy is organized. We might talk global minimum wages, effective systems to prevent the wealthy avoiding national taxes, a solution to currency markets, equitable trade (eg: an end to US and EU farming subsidies), etc. I might add, even George Soros is saying the present system isn't working.


So the current situation is difficult. One the one hand there are a lot of people in serious strife who need help. On the other, there is limited capacity in the economies of nations like Australia to absorb them. It is a sad fact that people will tend to use the easy solution. Rearranging the global economy is the hard solution. Accepting the current system and closing boarders is the easy solution.

[neopagan]

In 20 - 50 years Indonesia will be far more powerful (economical & militarily) than Australia, This is why its important for Australia to grow its population fast. Currently if we confront Indonesia (and create some tension) it could come back and bit us when they become 5th largest economy in the world.

By accepting 'Refugees' while not steeping on Indonesia toes we can avoiding future tensions and help our population grow faster.

The so called "Populate or Perish" theory goes back to the 1800s. It has yet to be seen to be true.

Avoid stepping on Indonesia's toes? That attitude is precisely what allowed them to commit atrocities in Timor. Muslim atrocities against the Christian Timorese. Australia must prepare for the same thing in West Irian (New Guinea). Indonesia has no right to that territory and those people have had enough of the Indoes. Indonesia claimed it when the Dutch left the East Indies and our government where too short sight or too gutless do anything about it.

At the moment I think the RAAF could take out most of Indonesia's military overnight.

If we are to increase our population against an Indonesian threat, it would be a bad idea to try to do it by importing Muslims from the Middle-East via Indonesia. This is the crux of the asylum seeker question.

[Ahovking]

At the moment I think the RAAF could take out most of Indonesia's military overnight.

Um, Indonesia outnumbers us in just about everything from Aircrafts to Naval ships, they even have Self-Propelled Gun and MLRS weapons etc. that we lack. and yes Currently today we could probably give them quite a beating but we wouldn't be able to win the war.

Anyway that doesn't change the fact like China, Indonesia is rapidly growing and modernising and will become one of the worlds largest economy by 2050. Their military will no doubt also modernise and the current capability gap between Australia's and indonesia's military will shrink.

Our Current advantage over our overpopulation neighbour wont last, and could later on pose a large threat if we start harming our relations with them today.

If we are to increase our population against an Indonesian threat, it would be a bad idea to try to do it by importing Muslims from the Middle-East via Indonesia. This is the crux of the asylum seeker question.

The idea is to help grow our population to help our economy stay ranked among the top 15. Countering a possible Indonesian threat is not the aim for this policy but a possible Solution to a problem many see could arise. Everyone is processed the only different is instead of just being release they will be taught skills and trades to help counter our skills shortages.

[foxdemon]

The so called "Populate or Perish" theory goes back to the 1800s. It has yet to be seen to be true.

Sweden seems to do OK with only 6 million. "Populate or Perish" is just a popular catch cry to sell a government immigration program to the public. The real motivation was, and still is, dividing up land into smaller parcels to sell to more people. Those who say immigration is about race are wrong. Immigration is about money.

Avoid stepping on Indonesia's toes? That attitude is precisely what allowed them to commit atrocities in Timor. Muslim atrocities against the Christian Timorese. Australia must prepare for the same thing in West Irian (New Guinea). Indonesia has no right to that territory and those people have had enough of the Indoes. Indonesia claimed it when the Dutch left the East Indies and our government where too short sight or too gutless do anything about it.

The intervention in East Timor was a big mistake. We should not get involved in Irian Jaya as it will also be a big mistake. Those peoples once liberated won't be friends to us. The Indonesian government is much easier to deal with. It was not in our national interests to intervene in East Timor and it is not in our interests to intervene in Irian Jaya.

At the moment I think the RAAF could take out most of Indonesia's military overnight.

Possibly, assuming the old classic hornets don't fall out of the sky on the way over. They are barely air worth you know.

If we are to increase our population against an Indonesian threat, it would be a bad idea to try to do it by importing Muslims from the Middle-East via Indonesia. This is the crux of the asylum seeker question.

Hmm, this might be something you could put some effort in worrying over. There are quite a few people from the Middle East who come to our region and they do hold moral/religious authority over Muslims in SE Asia. They have a very negative view of westerners and other non-Muslims. So they do radicalism some Asia Muslims.

However, there is a much softer tradition of Islam in SE Asia. Also there is a softer version in India. Believe it or not I have met some quite friendly people from places such as Egypt and Pakistan. I think our best option here is to cultivate the softer traditions in our part of the world rather than react to Islam as a whole. If we take a reactionary approach, we would only help the more extreme Muslims to gain influence.

Um, Indonesia outnumbers us in just about everything from Aircrafts to Naval ships, they even have Self-Propelled Gun and MLRS weapons etc. that we lack. and yes Currently today we could probably give them quite a beating but we wouldn't be able to win the war.

Though the Indonesian military is larger than the Australian military, the later is much more effective than the former. It is how the war machine as a whole functions, not any part of the whole, that matters. The Indonesians simply aren't that competent. The Australian military is well trained and lead, it has an extensive network of C3 and ISTAR capabilities. This means the Australian military knows what's going on and can move to concentrate for a local superiority. The Indonesian military leaders would be operating in the dark. Furthermore, Indonesia struggles to sustain the equipment they have due to shortage of skills and parts.

However, I don't think Australia could conquer Indonesia as it is too big. Also, why would we? A nation needs a reason to attack anther nation. Often the fight is over resources. Both Australia and Indonesia have resources in abundance. The idea of a war between the two countries is an academic exercise.

Anyway that doesn't change the fact like China, Indonesia is rapidly growing and modernising and will become one of the worlds largest economy by 2050. Their military will no doubt also modernise and the current capability gap between Australia's and indonesia's military will shrink.

Our Current advantage over our overpopulation neighbour wont last, and could later on pose a large threat if we start harming our relations with them today.

I have spent a lot of time in Indonesia. Since I have some knowledge of military and economic issues, I have been able to form an opinion on the capabilities of Indonesia and their potential. I have also talked with retired analysts who also visited and studied Indonesia to judge their military and economic potential. We all agree that Indonesians are nice people but absolutely hopeless. They aren't a military threat, trust me. Whats more I seriously doubt they will become as strong as a paper analysis might suggest.

I see a nation that looks up to Australia. Their attitude toward us can be turned into something positive. We have a lot to gain from helping Indonesia and interacting with them constructively. We have nothing to fear from Indonesia. My fellow Australians who do fear Indonesia simply don't know what they are talking about.

[Ahovking]

However, I don't think Australia could conquer Indonesia as it is too big. Also, why would we? A nation needs a reason to attack anther nation. Often the fight is over resources. Both Australia and Indonesia have resources in abundance. The idea of a war between the two countries is an academic exercise.

No we shouldn't invade or conquer Indonesia, that wasn't apart of my point. I dont think we will ever be as big as Indonesia nor should be try to be as big as them.

I have spent a lot of time in Indonesia. Since I have some knowledge of military and economic issues, I have been able to form an opinion on the capabilities of Indonesia and their potential. I have also talked with retired analysts who also visited and studied Indonesia to judge their military and economic potential. We all agree that Indonesians are nice people but absolutely hopeless. They aren't a military threat, trust me. Whats more I seriously doubt they will become as strong as a paper analysis might suggest.

I see a nation that looks up to Australia. Their attitude toward us can be turned into something positive. We have a lot to gain from helping Indonesia and interacting with them constructively. We have nothing to fear from Indonesia. My fellow Australians who do fear Indonesia simply don't know what they are talking about.

Once more as is said This idea is to help grow our population to help our economy stay ranked among the top 15. Countering a possible Indonesian threat (however unlikely) is not the main aim for this policy but a possible Solution to a problem many see could arise.

[oppose_obama]

Where are the refugees coming from to the Australia?

[foxdemon]

Where are the refugees coming from to the Australia?

At one time or another we have received refugees from pretty much everywhere. Currently Iran, Afghanistan, Sudan and Somali seem to be the sources.

Once more as is said This idea is to help grow our population to help our economy stay ranked among the top 15. Countering a possible Indonesian threat (however unlikely) is not the main aim for this policy but a possible Solution to a problem many see could arise.

I was addressing my post to Neopagan as much as yourself. I'm glad we have cleared it up.


As to a larger population, whether achieved through immigration or natural increase, the elephant in the room is water, or rather lack of water.

The continent is mainly arid desert. The artisian basis might support agriculture if water was available. But we are already short on water with the present population. Ideas like desalination plants mean water will be expensive. So they don't make economic sense.

To have a larger population, we need to have a reliable and large resource of water. Australia is too dry to support a large population.

[ThirdTerm]

The idea of setting up forced labour camps to house political prisoners originated in Soviet Russia during the Stalinist era and it was a major instrument of political repression in the Soviet Union. Labour camps gradually spread across the former Communist Bloc and many Chinese political figures were put into labour camps after purges during the Cultural Revolution era and hundreds of labour camps called Laogai still exist in modern-day China. Sending asylum seekers to forced labour camps may constitute crimes against humanity and it cannot be acceptable in a democratic society.

Precarious Lives is a 2 year research project into experiences of forced labour among asylum seekers and refugees run by academics at the Universities of Leeds and Salford, and funded by the ESRC. This research uncovered evidence that refugees and asylum seekers are susceptible to forced labour in the UK. The research explored experiences of forced labour among 30 people who had made claims for asylum in England and supplemented by interviews with 23 practitioners and policy-makers. The key findings of the project’s report are:
- Forced labour is experienced by three particular groups who interact with the asylum system at different points while in the UK: asylum seekers at entry, trafficked migrants and undocumented migrants. Most interviewees moved between various types of precarious work across a spectrum encompassing vulnerable work, seriously exploitative work and forced labour.
- All found themselves either on the margins of the labour market or in transactional exchange in a wide range of jobs in catering and hospitality, care, domestic work, food packing or processing, cleaning, manufacturing, retail, construction, security and other sectors.
- The most common experiences were of ‘employers’ and/or ‘intermediaries’ abusing workers’ socio-legal status of diminished rights to welfare, work and residence to withhold promised wages, enforce excessive overtime and subject them to abusive working and living conditions.
- The most striking finding is that the experience of severely exploitative labour, including forced labour, is often unavoidable for refugees and asylum seekers in order to meet the basic needs of themselves and their families.
http://www.migrantsrights.org.uk/news/2013/precarious-lives-reports-refugees-and-asylum-seeker-experiences-forced-labour-england

[AFAIK]

I cannot agree. Refugee policy is a sub-policy of the overall Immigration Policy. The status of refugees arriving illegally is the election issue, and these boat-people are confused by arriving aboard boats with others who are merely looking for a better place to live. Sorting this out is the duty of the Minister for Immigration.

Australia is a signatory to the UNHCR so it has restricted its options towards asylum seekers and refugees.

Immigrants can arrive illegally, Australia is obliged to investigate the claims of asylum seekers who reach its territory, refugees is the term for those who have been granted refuge or asylum by the state.

Foxdemon- Good points. Do you feel that immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees are being treated as scapegoats for economic and social issues?

[neopagan]

The intervention in East Timor was a big mistake. We should not get involved in Irian Jaya as it will also be a big mistake. Those peoples once liberated won't be friends to us. The Indonesian government is much easier to deal with. It was not in our national interests to intervene in East Timor and it is not in our interests to intervene in Irian Jaya.

"Those people won't be friends to us."

I disagree for several reasons. The most obvious is they are good old Catholics surrounded by Muslims. We (Australians) are the only friends they have unless you include Manila. It is also our moral duty to oppose Islam.

"The Indonesian government is easier to deal with." I disagree with this also. The Muslims from the Middle East come through their country ostensibly undetected ( I believe this to be total BS ) They take boats for Australia, which suits the Indoes perfectly. They then refuse to take their Muslim brothers back. It does not matter how many drown; they will be in Paradise with Mighty Mo. But the Indoes sure as hell are not taking the survivors back. They have their beach-head, not in the old style, but when Irian Jaya flares up they will have watered down our resolve; if we ever had any.

[foxdemon]

Australia is a signatory to the UNHCR so it has restricted its options towards asylum seekers and refugees.

Immigrants can arrive illegally, Australia is obliged to investigate the claims of asylum seekers who reach its territory, refugees is the term for those who have been granted refuge or asylum by the state.

Boats sinking at sea have to be helped also, though that is part of the law of the sea rather than the refugee convention.

However, if Australians wanted to, they could withdraw from the UN refugee convention. Rudd has been talking about changing the treaty. I doubt the Liberals would withdraw from the convention as the issue seems to be very useful for them politically.

The effect for withdrawing from the convention would be to remove any legal status for asylum seekers. So they couldn't take the government to court to contest asylum claims for example.

Taking such a course of action would damage Australia's international image, particularly in Europe, but I suspect the Europeans would follow the example after a period of loud condemnation. So withdrawing from the treaty might have a domino effect.

Foxdemon- Good points. Do you feel that immigrants, asylum seekers and refugees are being treated as scapegoats for economic and social issues?

I think this is so in regard to asylum seekers/ new refugees. Not so much for previous refugees, now settled, and not so much for immigrants. Actually the youth/unemployed cope a lot of scapegoating like the refugees, though this won't be of international interest. It is usually the case that those marginalized and excluded from the political-economy will be the ones subjected to prejudice. I guess the prejudice is part of the marginalization process. It also serves for political leaders to score points with the public. This is the case throughout the world.


However, it is not the case that all people seeking asylum are honest. So there are two sides to the story. Under the convention as it stands, governments can be exploited by fraudsters.


Plane arrivals in widespread rorting of asylum system

Stop the boats is the catchcry of the asylum seeker debate, but the majority of arrivals come to Australia by plane and many are using dodgy documents to gain residence.

The issue of asylum seekers arriving by boat is hugely politicised, but on this issue both sides of politics remain silent.

Last year more than 6,000 asylum seekers arrived by air. The largest group by far came from China, with much smaller numbers flying in from India and other south east Asian countries.

While some might be legitimate, many are not and they are being supported by a network of corrupt officials from China to migration agents in Australia.

Patricia Cruise, who worked as an immigration officer reviewing such claims for eight years, says fraud was common.

"What distinguishes the Chinese case load is that it's endemic - it's the norm with PRC applications to have some fraudulent content and for there to be some dodgy practices along the way," she said.

......