Oh My

[aesmael]

Just heard on the news. Apparently Australia's intake of African refugees has been "slashed from 70 per cent to 30 per cent" because, according to Federal Treasurer Peter Costello in support of Immigration Minister Kevin Andrews:

He said that with 20 to 30 million refugees worldwide Australia could not take them all and therefore needed to prioritise those that "most easily adapt and make a contribution to Australia".

From another article:

Earlier this week, as the government changed its explanation for why fewer African refugees will be allowed to settle in Australia this year, Ms Nixon said Sudanese people did not have higher crime rates than the general population.

"When we look at the data, what we're actually seeing is that they're not, in a sense, represented more than the proportion of them in the population," Ms Nixon said on Wednesday.

Mr Andrews today begged to differ.

"When you look at the data that I've looked at, it does seem to me that there is a higher proportion," he told Southern Cross Broadcasting.

But he was unable to release any figures showing higher rates of crime among Sudanese people.

Mr Andrews also offered no data to back his claim yesterday that African refugees were forming gangs, fighting each other in nightclubs, attacking other families and congregating in parks to drink alcohol.

"Well, those figures are figures which are produced by the police," he said.

Instead, the minister referred to immigration department figures that showed Sudanese refugees have lower levels of education and a younger age profile than others before them.

And according to Ninemsn:

... Mr Andrews said the humanitarian refugee program's quota for Africans had already been filled.

...

"We won't be considering any new applications until June or July next year," Mr Andrews told the Herald Sun.

In the initial news report I saw, the Prime Minister voiced his support of the Immigration Minister. He also - and I am noting this now because I forgot to at the time - stands behind the actions of the police during the APEC meetings. Noted because I want to remember his stance at the time in case something untoward turns up and he attempts to back off.

Let's finish with this quote, expressing something I have been meaning to say lately:

This is not the first time the Howard government has run into trouble over immigration. In the 2001 election, his administration asserted that migrants trying to enter Australia illegally by boat were throwing children overboard to pressure officials into picking them up. After the election, officials conceded that there was no evidence of children being thrown overboard.

    Need I comment? I think this speaks for itself, but for the record I find it appalling. Some people seem to like it though.

Comments

[taraxoxo.livejournal.com]

It seems that it really 'it's time' to get rid of the 'Liberal Party' (how confusing the name really is) and to keep them out of office until they can learn to behave.

[aesmael.livejournal.com]

When I was younger (around six or seven) I in fact urged my family to vote Liberal purely because of the name, which I thought meant they must be the good guys.

[taraxoxo.livejournal.com]

Me too, actually. In fact, I was surprised that my family didn't like Liberal too much. Now, as an adult, I am a proud liberal but like all liberals I do not like Liberal.

[lost-angelwings.livejournal.com]

Wouldn't true "humanitarian" intake be to take in the ones that need shelter and aid the most and not the most capable (and therefore prolly the ones not in immediate need) and able to "contribute" to your society? >_>

[aesmael.livejournal.com]

That is the system they are supposedly changing it from.