Australia will soon pay refugees to resettle in Cambodia

[MrBates2]

By Rod McGuirk | AP April 16
CANBERRA, Australia — Refugees from Africa, the Middle East and South Asia who are being held on the Pacific atoll of Nauru after being rejected by Australia could soon be paid to resettle in impoverished Cambodia in an arrangement by the Australian government that has been condemned by human rights activists as inhumane and potentially dangerous.

The deal signed last year with Cambodia, which will cost Australia more than 10 million Australian dollars ($7.6 million) a year, is the latest step in Australia’s evolving policy of deterring asylum seekers from attempting to reach Australian shores by boat. The government has vowed that no boat arrivals will ever be resettled in Australia.

More than 200 of the 1,200 asylum seekers held in an Australian-run detention camp on Nauru have been assessed to be genuine refugees and are eligible for resettlement in Cambodia if they volunteer to go, according to Australian officials.

It isn’t clear how many of them — including Iranians, Pakistanis, Afghans, Somalis, Sudanese and Uighurs — have agreed to go to Cambodia, whose culture and customs are different from their first choice, Australia.

 

[KingOrfeo]

The government has vowed that no boat arrivals will ever be resettled in Australia.

Does it say why?

 

[oggbashan]

Does it say why?

Australia has a firm immigration policy based on a points system calculated on what skills and expertise the potential immigrant might bring to Australia.

That system does not allow unskilled migrants to enter. They have a quota of genuine political refugees which is always under pressure.

If they allowed 'boat people' trying to enter illegally, their immigration policy would be broken.

Back in the 1900s their 'White Australia' policy was severely criticised. They replaced it with a dictation test. Potential immigrants had to pass a test administered in a language of the immigration officer's choice. If you were 'acceptable' i.e. white, you could be given dictation in English or possibly your native (European) language. If you were 'unacceptable' i.e. non-white, you could be expected to write down Welsh, Scots Gaelic or Esperanto...

Australia is now a multicultural, multi colour society, but immigrants are still judged on their potential merits. Boat people are attempting to bypass Australia's requirements and the Australian government is firmly opposed to illegal immigration.

Wiki article on history of immigration to Australia and outline of current policy:

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

Dictation test (until 1958):

Early drafts of the Act explicitly banned non-Europeans from migrating to Australia but objections from the British government, which feared that such a measure would offend British subjects in India and Britain's allies in Japan, caused the Barton government to remove this wording. Instead, a "dictation test" was introduced as a device for excluding unwanted immigrants. Immigration officials were given the power to exclude any person who failed to pass a 50-word dictation test. At first this was to be in any European language, but was later changed to include any language. The tests were written in such a way to make them nearly impossible to pass. The first of these tests was written by Federal MP Stewart Parnaby as an example for officers to follow when setting future tests. The "Stewart" test was unofficially standardised as the English version of the test, due to its extremely high rates of failure resulting from a very sophisticated use of language. While specifically asked by Barton to carry out this task, Parnaby allegedly shared similar views to Donald Cameron despite never publically admitting so citation required.

The legislation found strong support in the new Australian Parliament, with arguments ranging from economic protection to outright racism. The Labor Party wanted to protect "white" jobs and pushed for more explicit restrictions. A few politicians spoke of the need to avoid hysterical treatment of the question. Member of Parliament Bruce Smith said he had "no desire to see low-class Indians, Chinamen or Japanese...swarming into this country... But there is obligation...not (to) unnecessarily offend the educated classes of those nations"

 

[KingOrfeo]

Is a more liberal immigration policy something Australia could afford, I wonder?

 

[oggbashan]

Is a more liberal immigration policy something Australia could afford, I wonder?

Despite the vast size of Australia, the majority of its citizens live in major conurbations. Much of Australia isn't suitable for anything other than very sparse population because of lack of water.

Immigrants are allowed into Australia if they have skills that Australia wants. Australia also accepts a quota of genuine refugees.

But Australia, by population, is a small country. They have fewer people than Texas. They cannot afford to be swamped with unskilled immigrants that would need employment and/or state support.

 

[sr71plt]

Slightly better than just pushing them back to sea as has been the policy of some other countries down through history. Sort of amusing, though, as the original white settlers of Australia arrived as flotsam and jetsam themselves.

 

[ishtat]

Restrictions on getting into Australia are very tough. However, one in slightly more than every three Australians was born overseas.

The population has tripled to 23 million since 1950. There have been 500,000 new Chinese migrants since 1989 - generally well educated. Oz is almost identical in size to the contiguous USA.

Geography is a problem - lack of water - Oz has no river which would be equal in volume to any of the USA's top 100. Coastline is 35,000km long and 100% navigable.

Australians are generally fine with legal migrants but detest the illegal 'boat people.'

There are very few black African(Somali) migrants who are poorly regarded. The least popular migrants are Sunni moslems mainly from Iraq and Pakistan - they seem to have a disproportionate contribution to crime and an aversion to work (mainly the men) Shia from Iran and Sunni Afghans (largely Hazara) seem to fit in pretty well. Non Arab Moslems generally despise Arabs - but it is very complex, especially if tribalism is included.

No one says so, but OZ doesn't really want to settle these illegals in Cambodia. We want them to give up and go home - most do eventually.