How many Syrian refugees should Australia take?

[King Monkey]

[David]

Apparently Abbott has agreed to an increase in Syrian refugees but only at the expense of refugees from other areas. What generosity.

http://m.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/australia-ready-to-take-more-refugees-from-syria-tony-abbott-says-20150906-gjg6ud.html

Would it kill us to acknowledge that there's a major international crisis happening and that a little extra hard work is required? FFS, you'd think we were all living on the poverty line.

Worth pointing out that this refugee crisis has been happening for four years now, so the sudden rush to action is strange. Still, better late than never, I guess.

[Mugwump]

There are always major international crises David, and the Syrian people's tragedy is, sadly, not the only one. Our emotional response to one dreadful photograph does not make Syria a special case. What about the Ebola countries ? The Rohingya ? Afghans Much of sub-Saharan Africa ?

We should take a certain number of refugees every year, regardless of whether they are Syrian or not, and strongly resist creating mono-ethnic or mono-religious communities. Assuming effective dispersion policies, 10,000 seems a reasonable number. If there was a way to make sure they woudl return when the war was over, I'd accept a larger number, but I don;t think that'll happen. At the core of this refugee problem is the breakdown/exploitation of the distinctions between (a) temporary refugee ; (b) asylum ; and (c) permanent settlement/migration.

I think we'd be better with a coherent strategy for housing refugees in places close to their homeland. If the UN was any bloody use at all, rather than a talking shop for corrupt and vicious regimes like Russia (and Syria)to pursue their interests, then it'd be carving out a UN protectorate within Syria backed with effective military security, and putting pressure on the Arab countries to manage it. As the latest EU crisis was unfolding, Ban Ki Moon was at the Chinese military parade.

[What'sinaname]

As many as possible, but rather than setting up a mini Syria and bringing Syrian values and morals to our country, we actually have a program to assimilate these refugees into our communities so that they can genuinely contribute and feel like a citizen of a country and not a refugee.

[David]

[Culprit]

Abbott's reason is simple, it's not a vote winner.

[stui magpie]

[David]

I was hoping that they might explain their reasoning. Turning our backs on the crisis completely is a big call, and I want to know why people would support that option. At the end of the day, these people vote in the real world too.

[Tannin]

Which of the 17,268 existing posts on this subject scattered around in 384 other threads didn't you understand?

[David]

Show me just one.

Oh, we've had threads about refugees, of course. But those have all been about boat arrivals, people smugglers, detention, jumping the queue etc. The people who speak in favour of policies like our government's generally say that they support us taking in refugees so long as we get to decide who comes here and the manner in which they come, etc.

Well, here we are: this is a situation where we have an opportunity to do just that, where there are a lot of people in urgent need of assistance and where it's completely up to us how we respond to it. To that, 6 out of 12 respondents say we don't want to take any at all. I think it's fair enough to ask why.

[Jezza]

[Mugwump]

^ The burden is being placed on Europe because Europe's failed politics are making it so, Jezza. Europe has abolished its border controls, tolerated illegal migration (look at the ongoing crisis in Calais for the last 10 years), and then last week Germany acted completely unilaterally and put out a sign to all would-be migrants and refugees that they will take anyone who arrives, placing intolerable pressure on Hungary, Greece and Turkey. It shoudl not be forgotten that the tragedy of that small boy and his brother emanated form a decision to leave Turkey, not Syria, while trying to get to Western Europe. I understand that family's decision ; but it does not mean that they shoudl have been encouraged to make it.

The Arab countries should do more, I agree : but they are mostly states with no humanitarian credentials or interests at all, so it is not surprising. Europe has authored this crisis for itself, as with so much else.

[Tannin]

[David]

The top five countries accommodating Syrian refugees are, in fact, from the Arab world - Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq and Egypt, to be specific. Having said that, I agree with you that the gulf states are not pulling their weight right now.

http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-why-rich-arab-gulf-states-wont-welcome-syrian-refugees-2015-9?IR=T

As for Iran, well, as active sponsors of the Assad regime, it's little wonder that it wouldn't be high on the list as a refuge for Assad's victims.

[Tannin]

Why, given that there are all these refugees, millions of them, are they not able to stand up to the oppressors? Do they lack arms? Do they lack training? Or do they lack the will to fight for their own lives and country?