Hotwater:

Seems to me that Aus won't take refugees anymore. From what I've seen any arriving by boat get dumped on Nauru

Shining_brow:

It's not so much they/we won't take refugees, it's in determining whether someone is actually a refugee or just someone who wants a better life

Also. there's the taking of refugees (of which we take thousand annually), and there's trying to bypass the refugee processing system that is in place by coming in via a leaky boat to some deserted shore and being left to fend for oneself (or, taken into forced prostitution with passports taken away, being beaten, poorly fed, threatened, raped, etc etc...).

Hotwater:

How would someone genuinely apply for asylum in Australia if they can't set foot on Aus ground? Serious question, not digging. 

Shining_brow:

The same way Julian did to Ecuador - embassy or consulate.

Hotwater:

Assange was a political issue. Do you really think an Aus (or virtually any other countries) will let anyone through the gate without prior arrangements?

Shining_brow:

Right... and what's your point? No, seriously - what's the point you're trying to make here? (and the agenda behind it)

Englteachted:

You wanna tell me Americans are the only ones fed up with the flood of immigrants? At least the Aus leadership listened to their people

Hotwater:

My agenda? Trying to understand and also make a point. You ask whether some have been processed through the system and given asylum as a refugee. 

Australia (& the U.K. as another example) are clearly closing their doors to real refugees and asylum seekers. 

There are generally 3 types of migrants:

1) Economic migrants. These should be processed and sent him 

2) Refugees fleeing unrest/wars. Fir me they should be helped and then maybe, when their home countries settle down, be helped to go home. 

3) asylum seekers fleeing persecution in their home countries. These should be given sanctuary. 

On number 3 my understanding of international law is that you have to set foot in a country to claim asylum. For Aus that maybe possible if you can get on a flight but like most developed countries you've got to show you have a visa before you can board. The only other way is by sea. Aus has blocked this by stopping the boats before they hit land  and putting people in camps on Nauru where they can't claim asylum in Aus. It's a great way to say to Aus people were doing something about migration but stops and genuine asylum seekers seeking sanctuary (I've read enough about Nauru to know it's not a sanctuary)

iWolf:

Mr Hotwater, you pretty much hit the nail on the head with your understanding of the policy, however, it has been refined of late. Possibly the most notable change is that now, if you are caught trying to enter illegally then you are forever forbidden to enter Australia even as a tourist with a legitimate visa.

icnif77:

'Steamy water' like to hear praise .

What's puzzling me is how can one-add-it-'hit the nail on the head-a', despite policy was refined lately? It must be Native speak ...

You two 'work' together by any chance? 

ambivalentmace:

icniff , you learned a new idiom, hit the nail on the head, congratulations. get your kids to use in the IELTS, so they can score a 7, got to have an idiom or two.

Shining_brow:

@Hotwater Firstly, no, there's more than 3... and therein lies the problem.

Add to the list those people who just want a better lifestyle than what their current country (or economic status) provides. For example, all those tourists who go to a country, and then overstay by disappearing. This is why some visa applications take a long time to process - a high number of illegally overstaying 'tourists'. or 'students'. So, no, we're not closing the door to real refugees... we're just trying to determine those that are real, from those who are not!

So, there is clearly a problem when people go to a country with the intent of living there permanently, when they don't have the (legal) right to do so. One 'trick' has always been to request asylum.

Sure, some (most?) asylum requests are genuine... but we know that many are not. Finding out which is which takes a LOT of time, effort and money. And if those people who request asylum are allowed into the community, then they can disappear and never be seen again (change name, get fake documents, etc).

Some who come are only doing to so to spread violence or hate.

Australia is lucky... it's an island, surrounded by other islands. Therefore, I think that processing those asylum and refugee requests in an area where those people are a) safe, fed and housed, while also b) not in a position to disappear into the community if they're going to be a threat  is a good idea! Using Christmas Island, Naaru, etc etc isn't such a bad idea.

That doesn't mean there doesn't need to be improvements, particularly in the implementation of this idea....

@Engles - no, you've missed the point! Australia doesn't mind immigration. We DO have a problem with illegal immigrants! Particularly those who are able to offer nothing in return, and are going to be a burden on society with little chance of improvement (mostly due to age and education). AND you should be aware that there is a LARGE element of society that thinks their lives are more important than where they come from! Hence why this whole issue is a HUGE political issue - it's not cut and dried!!!

iWolf:

Pssst! "Pretty much" is known in some circles as a "qualifier".

Shining_brow:

OT, but...

@Ambi & Icnif.... sorry, no. Just having a couple of idioms isn't going to do much for getting a 7 in IELTS. If it was that easy, that's all kids would learn, and everyone would get high scores.

You can't get a 7, unless you're capable of getting a  5... (ooh, I have to use that in my lectures! :p).

icnif77:

@Shining: ambi was kidding (I hope!).

'How one can understand/correctly explain the matter, despite policy was updated lately?' without using all 3 idioms I know.

Hot water is fudge! Shill-fudge!

I can't stand the poser!

Here, fudge is your A through Yahoo-gle, and I am not claiming it as my own.

1. Family class (closely related persons of Canadian residents living in Canada).

2. Economic immigrants (skilled workers and business people).

3. Refugees (people who are escaping persecution, torture or cruel and unusual punishment). Source: Wikipedia

You Native hot-fudge!

Hotwater:

@ Shining. I'll refine my point 1) Illegal economic migrants. 

I can sort of understand Aus policies but Nauru is anything but safe from the reports I've read (admittedly in the left/centre press in the U.K.) though I also understand that none of the people in the camps have been processed and then let into Aus if their case was proven valid. Would be happy to be proven wrong. 

@Icnif, what are you on about? The Canadian definitions you've c&p'd above are for legal migration into Canada. Nevermind we're talking about Aus but you've also missed the point as usual. 

P.s. Your pathetic name calling is pointless. 

Shining_brow:

@Hots - you are partly correct. It isn't that Nauru or PNG is particularly unsafe, it's that there have been riots etc at the detention centres, as the illegal immigrants have been unhappy with being held in detention, sometimes for a few years.

Also, like in most communites in the world, there have also been crimes (including violent ones) committed, and allegations of rape.

At some time in the past, the private contractors charged to oversee the detention centres have been accused of violence towards the the asylum seekers.

There have been accusations of human rights abuses, but I haven't seen the details of this, so I'm not sure what the nature of these abuses are. This is relevant to my position on the subject. If they're being fed, housed in a safe location,without the fear of torture, etc, then I don't think they have much to complain about... other than not getting to where they wanted to go.If, however, the abuse is much worse than that (violence, starvation, etc) then I think there needs to be fixes.

As of 2013, the government's policy was to not allow those validated as refugees into Australia, but are sent to a different country.

'Compassion' doesn't mean giving you what you want because you're suffering!

I will, again, mention that Australia takes on hundreds or thousands of refugees each year = those that come in through the formally accepted, 'legal' way.

ironman510:

F-the DEMS, they and Obama has sent us 50 years back.

Englteachted:

Again more hysterics, do you understand what you're saying? With regards to the relationship with Russia, yes but where else are we 50 years behind?

Hotwater:

Yep, I'd love to know in what areas Obama has taken the US back 50 years. 

ambivalentmace:

Economically, the flood gates of immigrants during Obuma is going to set us back more than 50 years.

if 20 million people came in 8 years and i suspect the number is higher.

How many more schools will we need to pay for?

how many more on welfare?

how many more on food stamps?

how much more infrastructure nationally and by local governments?

all this money could have been uses for a progressive agenda in technology, education and other priorities and now we have to borrow it because we dont have it. these immigrants are not going to make high wages for taxes to pay and run the government better.

to assimilate these new immigrants could take 50 years, we have had assimilation problems before in the 50's and 20's and money was a problem both times and led to recessions.

unintended consequences were not the consideration of obuma, having the middle class gone and a permanent underclass that always vote democrat was the agenda, consequences be damned. this is exactly what the democrat party did and i dont really blame obuma, if clinton got the job in 2008, the result would be the same.

ambivalentmace:

ask jordon who has doubled in population with refugees in 8 years how their economy and budget is, how much will Germany spend on extra security and infrastructure with a million more syrians in the country and who will be paying the bill, the already highly taxed middle class.

Shining_brow:

20 million people who will be contributing to infrastructure by becoming builders, labourers etc. Millions who will go pick fruit for an amount that a US citizen won't lower themselves to accept, and thus keep the farm viable (with the farmer living barely above the poverty line as it is). Millions of people willing to do jobs that others with too much pride won't do.

And no doubt, millions who would love to be given the chance to save up some money, get themselves or their kids an education, and to improve their own lot, while also giving the local community a boost (especially since all that money from the above jobs will go to the shops where they live...). This is especially true since an illegal immigrant won't be able to get social security, and therefore will have to get money from another source.. eg, work! How to pay for rent? Work. How to pay for food? Work.

The problem with Trump's speech, and that of the far right wing conservatives such as yourselves, is that it totally ignores the reality that people usually want a chance to improve their lives. They're not going to the US or Australia just to shoot up on heroin (where are they going to get it and pay for it??) While there will be some who try to get food stamps and welfare, the majority will try to find a job (albeit low paying). Just ask Trump himself, who had Mexicans building his latest tower....

The ultimate question is - does the increase in migrants actually send the country backwards, or forwards? You say 'backwards' - but I don't think you have the actual figures to back that up!

Englteachted:

Ambi, you're an idiot. An immigrant could be someone who is actually working and bringing in investment money or running a business. So these people are not costing us. Most immigrants don't cost anything because of the visa process. Illegal immigrants more likely cost the USA and more came in under your boy Bush. 

Something you idiot DEms and Reps need to understand, when you flat out lie and make up nonsense you are setting the country back 50 years. Yes I agree we need to seriously limit immigration (which includes mostly other white countries, I say this cause when some retards talk about immigration they make it out to be like it's just Mexicans) but to just lie and manipulate stats means nothing gets done. 

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/20/number-of-illegals-levels-off-fewer-crossing-mexic/

As I said before, if you care about this, be factual.

Hotwater:

No way you can compare Jordan to the US. Jordan is awash for millions fleeing Syria and Iraq. How many of those refugees has the US actually taken?

Hotwater:

I'll answer my own question. Up till Nov 2015 the Us had taken 2184 Syrian refugees. You read that right. ONLY JUST OVER TWO THOUSAND!  

Germany has taken close to 1 million. 

http://m.cnsnews.com/news/article/patrick-goodenough/syrian-christians-are-greatest-peril-least-likely-be-admitted

Germany will work to integrate these people fleeing war or help them go home when Syria has a semblance of peace. 

Hotwater:

@ Ambi, where does you 20 million immigrants number come from?

If we're discussing immigrants who become permanent residents the. It seems it averags about 1 million/year. Source? State immigration department yearbooks. 

https://www.dhs.gov/immigration-statistics/yearbook/2014

so that's about 8 million. Who are the other 12 million you are referring to?

ambivalentmace:

legal immigrants have a cap, a number every year, not talking about them, talking about the border patrol being ordered to stand down and let them come on in by obama, obama flooding the country with children from south america, distrubuting pamplets and maps on how to get here. the low wage jobs will not pay our debt and sustain current spending,

shining may be right about a net benefit instead of loss but that does not include our debt obligations that siphon so much of the federal budget and the usual immigrant states that have high debt for retirements they cant pay for.

if america did not have so much interest payments, we probably could make a net gain by allowing more immigration, but the timing is wrong and it just want work.

when you have money, the in laws can stay rent free and eat your food, when you have no money, sorry, i have to take care of my own family first. when i say 20 million that is legal and illegal, not supposed to call them illegai anymore what's the new pc term undocumented immigrant. i have freinds that work for the border patrol, americans have no idea how many people have walked in for the last 8 years. if you lose the middle class and can't keep union workers voting for you with no job, then you flood the country with new poor voters to keep yourself in power. This will be proven in the course of time, if you dont believe it, just pay attention, you will see the results. Schools in america can't handle the flood of kids all over the country, watch the papers, the scheme will come out into the light, just pay attention and don't believe anything the press says.

Hotwater:

Ah, so you're 20 million is legal AND illegal immigrants? You say Obama told the border guards to stand down. Check your state department website I linked. That also gives figures for the number of deportations each year (until 2014, figures not published since then). I've not looked at those yet but will get back to you when I've had time to read them. Then we'll see if Obama left the floodgates open (& if he did I'll say so)

ambivalentmace:

Then came the historic endorsement from the National Border Patrol Council, the union that represents border patrol agents. A union whose 18,000 agents form what they call its green line had never endorsed a candidate for president. Shawn Moran, a border patrol agent and spokesman for the NBPC, said that Trump was the only candidate who met with its board and “promised to give us the support that has been sorely lacking.” And Moran said it wasn’t about the wall. It was about “catch and release,” which the NBPC said has become an alarming problem along the southern borders. Agents catch, but cannot hold, immigrants streaming into the country. Many who enter illegally are given the equivalent of a desk appearance ticket, make a pinky-swear promise to show up for a hearing with immigration officials, and are never seen again. this article from the utopia liberal heaven of boston and the boston globe, they know what happen, funny how they only mention this after the damage is done. In the 30 year history of the border patrol, never picked a party or candidate, must have been really pissed off to change their mind. hmm. I wonder what they were pissed about, does not matter, democrat presidents are perfect and have good intentions, never mind the sorry results, they mean well, lets sing kum bye ya, sorry i forgot kum bye ya had the world Lord in it, can't do that, might offend somebody.

ambivalentmace:

http://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/11/09/the-hidden-trump-voter-police/71MUxHoqBzNCKZZcpH42nO/story.html?p1=Article_Recommended_ReadMore_Pos4

Hotwater:

Let's have a look at homeland security numbers again.....

https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/Enforcement_Actions_2013.pdf

Unfortunatelty these numbers only go up to 2013 (2014 data in a zip file that I can't open on my phone). 

Look at the graph on page 6 of 8. These are the figures for those illegals kicked out of the US by a number of ways. The graph is interesting. Obama was inaugurated in January 2009. The number of illegals was increasing slowly from 2003-2008 but then jumped in 2009 to a figure of around 400,000 annually. So I'll put this straight to you ....

DURING OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY THE NUMBER OF ILLEGAL ALIENS DEPORTED FROM THE USA INCREASED. 

I like facts........better than blind emotions. I'm going to give up now as you have your "beliefs" & facts aren't going to change them. Thanks for the debate. 

ambivalentmace:

Deportation numbers have no correlation to people actually coming in, this is 2 different agencies on 2 different objectives.  Besides, it makes perfect sense that if inflows go up dramatically, the outflows will follow. Bring in more people and some of them will be criminals by some percent of the sample, and then when they commit the crime, homeland security deports more of them, obama did not suddenly become tougher than a republican on deportation, the volume simply increased substancially. with open floodgates. I do find it interesting that the give you one side of the numbers and hide the other one that has negative conatations but i'm sure its not intentional,right.

Hotwater:

I'll hold my hands up Ambi and acknowledge your 20 million number with some creative accountancy. 

Under Obama there's been about 1 million / year of legal migrants = 8 million. 

Theres an estimated 11 million illegal/undocumented migrants. 

So that's nearly 20 million

But.....you blamed that on Obama when it's not actually true. The number of illegal migrants in the US peaked at about 12 million in 2005.  Since Obama took power it dropped by 8-9% and has been stable at about 11 million since then. Source of report is pew research but the number comes from Homeland security. 

http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/11/03/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s/

yes i know you and lots of Americans have problems with illegal immigration but you're actually wrong when you claim Obama opened the floodgates. 

Ps of those 11 million you'll see that 8+ million are working. The others can't claim welfare or food stamps exactly because they are illegal. 

Englteachted:

Actually you're wrong Hotwater, illegals can claim welfare in some states. But here's my point, people like ambi act like this never happened before Obama this simply continued (actually in someways to a lesser extent with illegal immigration) under Obama. Legal immigration pretty much has always been trending upwards (at least in times of economic prosperity). This simply continued under Obama. People like amb are not reasonable , factual. realistic or fair minded. Your opinion can't be based on who did it. My  problem with immigration is 3fold. 1. Get rid of illegals . This needs to be done by addressing the corruption of the detainment/ deportation system. When an illegal is arrested, they are detained for up to years, they have to get a court hearing and a free lawyer. This cost the taxpayers millions to billions. It was designed this way for this very purpose (feed the lawyers) and both parties are guilty. 2. we need to be more restrictive when it comes to countries that are not truly friendly to the US. When it comes to China, Russia and middle east countries (you can throw some others in also) we should not allow permanent resident status or give them citizenship. Except if they are married to an American or other family considerations.  3. We need to be more restrictive when it comes to citizenship especially by birth. I like China's way of establishing citizenship, by your parent not by birth place. This is a new globalized world.

Shining_brow:

@Engles

A) I don't think China or Russia are 'hostile' to the US. They have their own agendas, and the US has its. Just because those agendas conflict doesn't mean they are 'hostile'. Especially when you look at Russia. They should learn to co-operate.(something which Russia has been saying for quite a while now...). The Cold War is over!

B) Citizenship... the idea that you need at least one parent with citizenship is not unique to China... Australia has had this policy for decades... which is why people aren't flooding to Aus to try to get citizenship - it ain't that easy! Nor are late-term pregnant women coming here to drop off a kid to get citizenship (like the US allows for).

Englteachted:

But Chinese nationals many (not most) try to further China's agenda and build their soft power. They protest things that the CCP directs them to. 

Shining_brow:

"But Chinese nationals many (not most) try to further China's agenda and build their soft power. They protest things that the CCP directs them to."

I''m not sure what you're getting at....????

Also, not sure that Chinese (the people) give a rat's arse about 'China's' agenda, but far more interested in their own agenda.

Englteachted:

The CCP directs them to protest some dumb skit by a comedian because it hurts China's feelings. 

Then recently they're boycotting sooner unknown rappers song from 2 years ago.  Calling for censorship in America to fit China's agenda, an exercise in soft power.

I left out the rampant spying and stealing tech to send back home

philbravery:

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull has confirmed the government has reached a one-off deal with the United States to resettle refugees currently in regional offshore detention centres on Nauru and Manus. Mr Turnbull today emphasised the agreement would not be repeated, meaning it would not be available to any future asylum seekers attempting to reach Australia. He said the government was in the final stages of negotiation with Nauru for a 20-year visa for people who are offered a settlement arrangement in the US but refuse to take it. The prime minister thanked the United States for its cooperation. "We have a long history of cooperation in which our two nations pursue our mutual and respective humanitarian objectives," Mr Turnbull said. US Secretary of State John Kerry. (Getty) US Secretary of State John Kerry. (Getty) Secretary of State John Kerry earlier today confirmed the United States has agreed to consider referrals from the UNHCR on refugees who are being detained in Australia's offshore detention centres. "We in the United States have agreed to consider referrals from UNHCR on refugees now residing in Nauru and in Papua New Guinea," he said. "We are encouraging all countries to work with UNHCR ... to find a durable solution for these refugees." The UNHCR has stressed it is not a party to the deal, and says the full details of the agreement are not yet known. In a statement today, the refugee agency welcomed the announcement, but acknowledged "the approach taken by Australia in transferring refugees and asylum seekers to open-ended detention in Papua New Guinea and Nauru has caused immense harm to vulnerable people who have sought asylum since 2013". The statement confirmed the UNHCR would endorse referrals made from Australia to the United States but said it remains "gravely concerned about the fate of all vulnerable individuals in Papua New Guinea and Nauru" and that "appropriate solutions must be found for all of them". Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull Mr Turnbull declined to say exactly how many refugees would be resettled, and did not put a timeline on the transition to the US other than it will be orderly and that American officials from Homeland Security would be coming to Australia to begin the process in the next few days. He said each transferee would be carefully assessed by the US, but that the deal would focus primarily on women, children and families. Mr Turnbull said he anticipates people smugglers will seek to use the agreement as a marketing opportunity to tempt vulnerable people on to these perilous sea journeys. But he says Australia's border protection policy has not changed. "It is resolute," he said. "Any people smuggling boats that attempt to reach Australia will be intercepted and turned back." Asked about US president-elect Donald Trump wanting to ban Muslim immigrants to the US, Mr Turnbull said his government will deal with one administration at a time. Immigration Minister Peter Dutton said this deal only applies to people who are on Nauru at the moment, prioritising women and children and family units and with the prospect of providing assistance to others on Nauru and Manus. This includes those 370-odd people who have come from Nauru or Manus and are receiving medical attention in Australia at the moment. "The announcement today will never ever apply to any prospective arrivals," he said. He said Nauru will be an enduring presence as part of the success of Operation Sovereign Borders "into perpetuity". Opposition leader Bill Shorten has welcomed the deal, but said Labor had not yet seen the details. "Labor would be hypocritical if we didn't welcome this because this is the very thing we wanted with the Malaysia solution some years ago," he told reporters in Melbourne. Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/national/2016/11/13/09/45/turnbull-to-speak-on-us-refugee-deal#olA2OT53B8xGUD4q.99

philbravery:

sadly i think this is going to blow up in our face. Smugglers are going to spread the word this is the gateway to the USA and the boats will start again . and the states will change their mind on taking any

iWolf:

As if swapping people isn't bad enough, Australia is in fact selling them...ie usa is paying for the deal. I think there is a word for selling people......

Englteachted:

Exactly why Americans are pissed, we are paying for a fucking debt!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hotwater:

I've corrected your misunderstanding for you. 

"lets see if you speak the queen's english, we send you to New York, if you speak American English and know how to make a bomb, we send you to California, next in line please"

Since 9/11 more Americans have been murdered by home grown terrorists than by Muslim immigrants. I can't be bothered finding the link/facts as you wouldn't read it anyway......

ambivalentmace:

i thought they stop and blow a subway in London and say hello to the mayor on the way to America so they already have on the job training.

Hotwater:

Unfortunately they were homegrown which is why the U.K. has been working with the Muslim communities to reduce/try to stop radicalisation & why hate orwachers like Adham Choudry (spelling?) have been jailed. 

Whata the US doing about your home grown white terrorists?

ambivalentmace:

sorry, not a fan of multiculturalism, China and Japan are the only smart countries left, they say "no" and keep the problem down to a minimum.

Hotwater:

I know you're not a fan and lots of other people aren't as well. 

Problem is that a lot of developed countries invited a lot of people in from different cultures after WW2 & later to boost their workforces laid waste by the war. 

Closing the doors is one thing. Ensuring harmony with 2nd & 3rd generations is another. They can't be "sent home" as they are British, American, whatever. 

One of the biggest problems, in my simplistic view, is the demonisation of Muslims such that some of those 2nd & 3rd Gen migrants don't feel welcome in society & are easier targets for hate preachers. Combine that with America in particular invading Muslim countries on false pretenses to "bomb them back to the Stone Age" & we've all got a recipe for disaster. 

We as a society need to engage with our Muslim populations & stop tagging them all as terrorists. Maybe too naive a view but something has to change. 

ambivalentmace:

hotwater, I do have a large bias against Muslims, not as extreme as retiredinchina who said he loathed them, but I have had to deal in Africa with Muslims, sometimes fighting with them or against them depending of what France gave me for orders. The problem I see is they have never moderated the quoran like the bible has been edited and rewritten through the ages of time, so many still take it literally that are Muslim believers and really don't tolerate any believers of any other faith. I'm not sure how you change these folks, my French commander said one day the Muslims would piss off the world and the military of Russia, China and the United States would march through Africa and the Middle East killing every male and let them start over. Young and naive at the time, I thought he was insane, sadly, he may be right.

retiredinchina:

relax, trump has lived in new york all his life, he knows new york city operates on a city income tax on about 48000 millionaires that pay 70 percent of the taxes to run the city.

he has seen democrats destroy the city with progressive spending and republican be to far right and get crime under control but go to far and get voted out. New York has swung right and swung left and he is still there doing business with both. he will be a center president on social issues and a right candidate on financial issues and he will win wars or not have them at all. reagan was a democrat and trump has been a democrat, the middle class voter is what you need to win in america and if the parties throw out the middle class, then they will have 3 four five political parties like Europe and nothing will get done, neither party wants this to happen.

its good to see some payback though, jeff sessions is long over due, reagan wanted him to be a judge and the democrats would not approve him so he ran for office to get even with the assholes who voted him down, and they had to hear his name in the congress and senate for over 20 years, something he did not want to do and now he will be running the courts. i love a goddamn happy ending. I hope he makes the whole world uncomfortable. i hold grudges forever, still pissed at what kennedy did to robert bork, the best legal mind on the planet, hope kennedy is in a special place in hell.

philbravery:

Can you post a link to this exchange you talk about ? sounds like something people should be aware of

philbravery:

the only thing o can find is from 2007 when Howard was PM. 200 to us and 200 to the Yanks every year. Don't even think this deal is still going . Really looking forward to knowing more about what you are saying is going on

retiredinchina:

america is supposed to give some refugees from central america to australia in this exchange at some point in the future not yet determined. Only obama would make a deal based on future intentions that screw America with a "coulda" "shoulda" agreement, just precious, can you feel the arrogant narcissistic love of the great one looking out for our best interests.

Shining_brow:

I'm trying to get a few links (for validation), but the one I want may need VPN.

However....

From the most recent on this whole thing: (which is a re-report from Reuters)

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/australian-pm-describes-frank-call-trump-post-reports-035544260.html

In which it says: "During former President Barack Obama's administration, the United States agreed to resettle up to 1,250 asylum seekers held in offshore processing camps on Pacific islands in Papua New Guinea and Nauru. In return, Australia would resettle refugees from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras." (my emphasis)

And from Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com.au/2017/01/31/u-s-will-take-1250-australian-refugees-subject-to-extreme-vet/

Quote - " A refugee deal was announced last November, under former president Barack Obama, where Australia would take refugees from Central America in exchange for the U.S. resettling people currently on Nauru and Manus Island. No details on the number of refugees included, or the timeframe for resettlement, were announced. Many refugees in those centres are from the Middle East, and combined with Trump's previously announced plans to ban Muslim immigration to America, there were fears the deal was in doubt under the new administration."

Earlier - http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-21/un-refugee-summit-australia-intake-upped-to-19,000-per-year/7863712

The date, you may notice, is only from September last year.

You may also note :

"The US earlier this year announced a plan for Costa Rica to temporarily take refugees fleeing violence in Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador.

Mr Turnbull said Australia would help the US resettle some of this group.

"We will also participate in the US-led program to re-settle Central American refugees currently in a re-settlement centre in Costa Rica," he said.

Again, from September last year - http://www.skynews.com.au/news/top-stories/2016/09/21/australia-to-join-us-refugee-program.html

So, yeah... it's been in the news, but obviously overlooked by many - including Trump!