The AAP via the Herald Sun (News Corp) reports on a deal between the Australian government and the former U.S. administration. Under the arrangement, people seeking asylum in Australia—who have, controversially, been detained in centres on Nauru and on Manus Island in Papua New Guinea—would have been resettled in the United States. However, according to the story, the plan is now in question due to the change in leadership there.
According to The Guardian , "the U.S. could resettle zero refugees from Manus Island and Nauru and still be 'honouring' the deal."
related story:
Manus Island Centre Deemed Illegal; Detainees Seek Compensation
(Score: 2, Offtopic) by tftp on Friday February 03 2017, @06:49AM
You know, if the US, UK and Australia hadn't gone rampaging around the middle east, maybe we wouldn't be having this problem in the first place?
Here is the link (PDF) [border.gov.au] to some statistics. The refugees come from the following countries, sorted most to least: New Zealand, Iran, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, China, India, Iraq, UK, Afghanistan, Other. The USA had done things to some of these countries, but not to the other. I see no direct link between rampaging in ME and this stream of migrants - which started around 1976, by the way. The refugees from the UK outnumber refugees from Afghanistan! How would one explain that?
(Score: 4, Informative) by coolgopher on Friday February 03 2017, @07:09AM
Nice link, thanks!
I'd say that you're mixing up the concept of a refugee with a person in immigration detention though. People end up in immigration detention for other reasons than arriving as a refugee. Overstaying your visa could likely get you detained until a suitable deportation flight is available, and if you're a temporary resident who ends up with a criminal record you're likely get deported*, and again, placed in detention until such a time (especially if there's an appeal pending, I'd imagine). Feel free to shoot down my logic here if you can though, it's good for the discussion :)
*) The irony of this considering the origin of this country is staggering...
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 03 2017, @09:27AM
The refugees come from the following countries, sorted most to least: New Zealand, Iran, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, China, India, Iraq, UK, Afghanistan, Other. (...) I see no direct link between rampaging in ME and this stream of migrants
Really? No link at all? Let me give you a hint: distance. There are three groups of countries in that list: those that are close (NZ, Vietnam, Sri Lanka, India), those that the US&co fucked up (Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan), and others (China, UK).
The first group are probably (as coolgopher pointed out) just normal visitors/immigrants from neighboring countries that had some trouble.
From the third group, you might know that there are a lot of people in China, not to mention an oppressive government. Probably not the direct fault of the US&co.
The refugees from the UK outnumber refugees from Afghanistan! How would one explain that?
... If you think for a second, it's easy to explain. Australia is a part of the Commonwealth, so it's (culturally) easier to move there than most other countries. The UK also treats 1984 as a hint book, which can create some dissatisfaction.
So we're left with the second group... Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan. The outliers. I wonder why are those three on there...
I see no direct link between rampaging in ME and this stream of migrants - which started around 1976, by the way.
... Really? No link at all?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_intervention_in_the_middle_east [wikipedia.org]
American policy during the Cold War tried to prevent Soviet Union influence by supporting anti-communist regimes and backing Israel against Soviet-sponsored Arab countries. The U.S. also came to replace the United Kingdom as the main security patron of the Persian Gulf states in the 1960s and 1970s, working to ensure Western access to Gulf oil.
http://usmeforeignpolicy.umwblogs.org/intervention-timeline/ [umwblogs.org]
1973-75: To destabilize Iraq during a border dispute with Iran, US supports Kurdish rebels with $16 million in arms, promising to back them in their struggle for autonomy. When Iran and Iraq reach an agreement in 1975 and seal off their border, Iraq proceeds to violently suppress the Kurdish rebellion. US ends support for Kurds and denies them refuge
... No link at all....?
(Score: 1) by tftp on Saturday February 04 2017, @12:53AM
So we're left with the second group... Iran, Iraq, Afghanistan. The outliers. I wonder why are those three on there...
Indeed, why - especially considering that Syrians, Libyans, Somalians and other Uzbeks and Rwandans haven't made it to the top of the list - they are somewhere among the "Other" category - a dozen or two per nation. The USA does not wage a hot war against Iran, as far as I know, but Iran is #2 on the list. Most likely, this is economic migration (exacerbated by the politics on both sides - the mullahs in charge of Iran are not entirely adorable and cuddly, and they maintain a good number of mobile construction cranes.)
It appears that migration to Australia is popular only within some countries, but not the other. One would think that certain wealth is required... but no, Afghans are not that rich, but they are listed separately. Iranians probably have some money, and the same can be said about Iraqis - under Saddam, after the war with Iran, the country was doing OK. Sri Lanka is a generally poor island; those who have money there do not need to migrate away, and those who need, cannot.
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Saturday February 04 2017, @02:41AM
> The USA does not wage a hot war against Iran, as far as I know
Technically correct, but ignores the little fact that the US does in fact wage war against Daesh (IS/ISIS/ISIL/whatever-acronym), which just so happens to have ensconced itself across Syria and Iraq, just on the border of Iran. And don't forget that on the opposite border you've got Afghanistan, where the US waged its other little war against Al-Quaeda.