Quote:

Originally Posted by Kiron View Post

The difference is, England gets hundreds of thousands of refugees.
Australia gets a handful that are usually settled in the middle of nowhere.
Also Australia is 31x+ the size of England with not even a quarter of the population.

You can not compare Europe which takes the brunt of Refugees in any way to Australia. Europe in its entirety isn't even near the size of Australia.

From Wiki.....
Migration program outcomes have increased from 70,200 in 1999–00 to 168,685 in 2010–11.[5]
The Humanitarian program for 2011–12 is set at 13 750 places. This category includes a 12 per cent target for Woman at Risk visas. This allocation also includes Onshore Protection visas granted to people who apply for protection in Australia and are found to be refugees.[6] In 2010–11, a total of 13,799 visas were granted under the Humanitarian Program. A total of 5,998 visas were granted under the offshore component, including 759 Woman at Risk visas. In addition, 2,973 Special Humanitarian Program visas were granted to people outside Australia. A total of 4,828 visas were granted to people in Australia.[7] Australia resettles the third largest number of refugees of any country and more refugees, per capita, than any other nation in the world.............

back to me now...

for the whole of 2011-2012 we increased humanitarian allowance to 14,000 and yet 15,500 have arrived in the first half of 2013 alone. We now have to vet and place these people. People that had gone via countries that were not war torn and were perfectly safe for them to remain in. The major difference is that Australia potentially offers a better lifestyle for them.

Reports in the SMH last month showed that close to 95% of all illegal immigrants are still reliant on welfare after 5 years. For Immigrants allowed into Australia via government programs around a quarter receive government assistance and a large portion of those are not completely reliant on it.

One of the biggest social issues in Australia's history has centered on Lebanese muslims who came to Australia to do manufacturing jobs in the 1970's. Most had little or no English skills and the jobs they originally thought they could do disappeared as the manufacturing industry moved overseas.

High levels of unemployment, low education standards, difficulty assimilating into Australian society, feelings of alienation and resentment towards the majority of the people living in their adopted country (and vice versa). High levels of crime, attitudes towards the rights of women etc - the social issues that stemmed from this wave of immigration were endless and sadly remain to this day. This was from approximately 20,000 immigrants.

Why did I use this case and not say the Vietnamese or Greek or Italian etc waves of immigration? Well simply put, this group of people most closely represents the most recent wave of immigration. People from the Middle East with poor English skills, who remain reliant on welfare in the long term.

If you're going to accept people into Australia (and I believe we absolutely should) then we need to ensure that the people can be housed, fed, trained for employment to reduce reliance on welfare and provided proper support networks to ensure they become productive members of Australian society. We don't want to slam them in some ghetto, forcing them onto a life dependent of welfare and resentful towards Australia. It does them and us no good at all.

In order to do this immigration should be managed on our terms and no one elses. Telling people that arriving illegally will ensure they are never allowed in is bloody harsh, but unfortunately necessary.
Never mind the bollocks
Here's Lambretta