Senate Your asylum is in another country: Europe, refugees, and xenophobia.

No, anyone deemed as an "unauthorised arrival" goes to Nauru where attempts are made to establish prima facie asylum status. They are then processed in earnest if their prima facie claim is viable.

Of the first step process, <50% are found to be genuine refugees - that is, more than 1 in every 2 arrivals is an economic migrant. Of the 50% who pass a prima facie test, 70-ish% are given asylum status.

 

So, not only does the USA accept a shamefully low number of refugees to begin with. But many are now leaving for Canada, due to fears of being deported. I think this has been discussed before but here are some recent numbers.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/olympic-stadium-houses-asylum-seekers-1.4231808

Over 4000 in the first six months of the year, and another thousand in July.

 

Yeah they're also staying in Mexico rather than going to Trump's America.

It's like Bannon watched the Handmaiden's Tale (but like, Episodes I and II) and went "Yes, we can have this all white future" and here we are.

 

The USA has admitted an average of 98,000 refugees per year since 1980.

 

We have over 300 million people, 98,000 is a fraction of a percent.

 

Since 1975, the U.S. has resettled over 3 million refugees. In recent years, an additional 40,000 or so come in annually as asylum seekers and Cuban/Haitian entrants with the same rights/entitlements as refugees.

The US accepts more than twice as many refugees as all countries from the rest of the industrialized world combined.


Is there a figure that works better for you?

 

So why shouldn't the U.S. accept more refugees?

 

Which is still lower on a per capita basis, by almost half, than the UK.

 

Also, Germany just took in 1,000,000 refugees displaced by American misadventures in foreign policy. Refugees for whom America, under Mr Obama, agreed to a pitifully low amount; and whom Mr Trump demonised.

Turns out that high horse was made of cardboard after all.

 

AM: the refugee crisis of 2015 will not be repeated

“[In] the next few months, the most important [thing] is to return refugees,”

 

Why do Americans, defending the indefensible acts of their country, always sound exactly the same in their uninspired defence?

 

Also that piece is a year out of date, and pulled from your arse to justify bad behaviour. You literally cherry picked a source, well done you titanic intellectual you.

http://www.dw.com/en/report-rate-of-deportations-stagnating-in-germany/a-39110422

8,000 deportations to date this year. YOU SURE SHOWED US.

 

Debating pink elephants, ES?

 

Trump and PM Turnbull's conversation, transcribed, talks about the stuff I've always said on migration here:

TURNBULL: Secondly, the people — none of these people are from the conflict zone. They are basically economic refugees from Iran, Pakistan, and Afghanistan. That is the vast bulk of them. They have been under our supervision for over three years now and we know exactly everything about them.
TRUMP: Why haven’t you let them out? Why have you not let them into your society?
TURNBULL: Okay, I will explain why. It is not because they are bad people. It is because in order to stop people smugglers, we had to deprive them of the product. So we said if you try to come to Australia by boat, even if we think you are the best person in the world, even if you are a Nobel Prize winning genius, we will not let you in.

Now this conversation was private, and you can hear the power imbalance and the necessary flatter Trump demands from someone with an excellent set of "soft" people skills like Turnbull. It's painfully awkward in parts.

But that's always been key and I've been saying it for more than ten years now, since I worked at the Immigration Department. Our position has always been one of "boat arrivals aren't welcome", because there are a number of extant means for getting to Australia as a refugee or a migrant. And as you can see from independent, non-partisan reviews, most of the arrivals are not found to have a legitimate refugee claim. For every 100 who land by boat, 50 are referred on as having a prima facie asylum claim. 50 are found to be economic migrants and returned. And of that first tranche of 50, 70% - so, 35 - are found to have a genuine claim.

If you had seen or knew some of the stuff about people smugglers I did - and of course, I can't go into a lot of detail on it, even all these years later - you'd understand the concern. Back in 2006/08, the cost per-head of coming here, factoring in risk, was AU$50,000 per person. That lead to a lot of basically indentured servitude. Googling costs now, it seems they've offered cut-price deals; they're not longer pricing in risk, they're pricing against a reduced flow it seems.

It's a tough position because the default assumption is that the arrivals are refugees when they are not. And the people exploiting them to bring them here are some of the worst people on the planet, but there's almost no outrage at them internationally. When the Labor party were elected in 2007, they started their 2008 term by dismantling frameworks that they instantly put back in place. That should tell you someting, when both parties are taking this stance.

 

Also this:
: What is the thing with boats? Why do you discriminate against boats? No, I know, they come from certain regions. I get it.
: No, let me explain why. The problem with the boats it that you are basically outsourcing your immigration program to people smugglers and also you get thousands of people drowning at sea. So what we say is, we will decide which people get to come to Australia who are refugees, economic migrants, businessmen, whatever. We decide. That is our decision. We are a generous multicultural immigration nation like the United States but the government decides, the people’s representatives decides. So that is the point. I am a highly transactional businessman like you and I know the deal has to work for both sides. Now Obama thought this deal worked for him and he drove a hard bargain with us – that it was agreed with Obama more than a year ago in the Oval Office, long before the election. The principles of the deal were agreed to.

SOURCE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/grap...ia-mexico-transcripts/?utm_term=.c7f0f7d72556

Reading these is agonising. Having to flatter an actual imbecile like they do.