- 08 Aug 2013 10:35
#14285204
That is the current situation. The war in Sri Lanka came to an end a year or two ago and many Tamils sort refuge in Australia. These people are of the sort the refuge convention was aimed at, I might point out. But that war had nothing to do with America.
The problem with expanding the number of nations taking in refugees is problematic due to the state the world is in. Let me explain by reference to historical refugee settlement in Australia.
In the 1950's and 60', Australia took in many European refugees in order to relieve press on the reconstruction of Europe after WW2. Many of these refugees had been associated with the Nazis and settling them in Australia would avoid conflicts in Europe caused by those seeking revenge. This ensured stability.
Now in those days there was full employment in Australia. Actually I think the unemployment rate was 1% or lower. It was not any problem to find those refugees employment as there was major infrastructure projects under way (eg: Snowy Mountain Scheme). Also there were many state owned enterprises to take people on and train them. So integrating refugees was easy.
These days unemployment is officially around 5% but much higher, especially amongst the youth. It isn't easy these days to break into the labour market. This makes it very much harder to settle refugees and integrate them into the economy and community.
Now Australia is actually better off than most countries in regard to the economic situation. I am trying to think of affluent countries with low unemployment. I can think of Singapore but I doubt many refugees could be squeezed in. Japan or S Korea are affluent but I am not sure their have low unemployment. In Japan's case they have serious economic issues to resolve. China is becoming more affluent, second biggest economy in the world in fact. But there is considerable economic inequality (as bad as in the USA I hear). Maybe China could take refugees, but their unemployment rate might rule this out.
The countries that are taking refugees have ailing economies. America takes the most, I believe. Some 60,000 per year. But the economy over there is in dire straights. Europe is in debt and their rate of growth is unlikely to reach a level to cope with debt levels. That means they are stuffed for a very long time. Unemployment in Europe is around 10% I think. Much higher amongst the youth.
There simply isn't much prospect in the world for integrating refugees at this time. Yet there are at least around 45 million refugees waiting for resettlement. The world today really does suck that bad. It is a very different place from the 1950's and 60's.
AFAIK wrote:According to the guardian the majority of boat arrivals are from Afghanistan and Iran.
That is the current situation. The war in Sri Lanka came to an end a year or two ago and many Tamils sort refuge in Australia. These people are of the sort the refuge convention was aimed at, I might point out. But that war had nothing to do with America.
AFAIK wrote:The thread was focused on boat arrivals so I overlooked other methods. We should acknowledge Australian efforts to provide asylum to others. This also begs the question as to why this system cannot be expanded. Perhaps Australia could explore ways to share the burden of relocating refugees with other nations. The structure of the Malaysia solution proposal suggests that numbers aren't Australia's biggest concern.
The problem with expanding the number of nations taking in refugees is problematic due to the state the world is in. Let me explain by reference to historical refugee settlement in Australia.
In the 1950's and 60', Australia took in many European refugees in order to relieve press on the reconstruction of Europe after WW2. Many of these refugees had been associated with the Nazis and settling them in Australia would avoid conflicts in Europe caused by those seeking revenge. This ensured stability.
Now in those days there was full employment in Australia. Actually I think the unemployment rate was 1% or lower. It was not any problem to find those refugees employment as there was major infrastructure projects under way (eg: Snowy Mountain Scheme). Also there were many state owned enterprises to take people on and train them. So integrating refugees was easy.
These days unemployment is officially around 5% but much higher, especially amongst the youth. It isn't easy these days to break into the labour market. This makes it very much harder to settle refugees and integrate them into the economy and community.
Now Australia is actually better off than most countries in regard to the economic situation. I am trying to think of affluent countries with low unemployment. I can think of Singapore but I doubt many refugees could be squeezed in. Japan or S Korea are affluent but I am not sure their have low unemployment. In Japan's case they have serious economic issues to resolve. China is becoming more affluent, second biggest economy in the world in fact. But there is considerable economic inequality (as bad as in the USA I hear). Maybe China could take refugees, but their unemployment rate might rule this out.
The countries that are taking refugees have ailing economies. America takes the most, I believe. Some 60,000 per year. But the economy over there is in dire straights. Europe is in debt and their rate of growth is unlikely to reach a level to cope with debt levels. That means they are stuffed for a very long time. Unemployment in Europe is around 10% I think. Much higher amongst the youth.
There simply isn't much prospect in the world for integrating refugees at this time. Yet there are at least around 45 million refugees waiting for resettlement. The world today really does suck that bad. It is a very different place from the 1950's and 60's.