Well, according to the UN there are 747,000 refugees requiring resettlement "in third countries". Last year, 112,400 were resettled. From the UN's website we learn that:
Currently, 90 per cent of all refugees resettled every year are accepted by the United States, Canada and Australia, while only 6 per cent go to Europe.
So just three Anglosphere countries are taking 90% of the refugees.
The refugee system is in need of radical reform. I'd like to propose three measures to create a better system:
a) Asylum seekers should only be offered places in countries with a similar standard of living. This would immediately screen out those who are merely economic migrants seeking a higher standard of living elsewhere and clogging up the system.
b) Asylum seekers should be placed in countries which are closest ethnically to their own. This would allow for easier assimilation. For example, would it make sense for white South African asylum seekers to be placed in a suburb of Beijing? No, because the South Africans would feel like strangers there and have trouble assimilating.
c) The costs of resettlement could primarily be borne by the wealthier, developed countries. But this should be done equitably. It should not just be the Western countries taking responsibility, but also wealthy countries elsewhere in Asia and the Middle-East.
I understand that my proposals aren't likely to be accepted by the Western elites. These elites seem to have a different agenda. For instance, a senior judge in the UK has decided that homosexuals claiming persecution in their home countries should be allowed to stay in the UK as they have a right to be "free to enjoy themselves going to Kylie concerts and drinking exotically coloured cocktails".
It's true that homosexuals are persecuted in some countries. But the judge's decision means that anyone from these countries can migrate to the UK by claiming to be homosexual. The motivation could just as easily be to access the generous welfare payments in the UK or the higher standard of living.
The judge's decision is yet another step on the path to open borders. Under my proposals, there would still be an opportunity for resettlement, but without the inducements to large-scale economic migration.
Hat tip: NZ Conservative
Very good points - please drop into our new expat conservative blog based in JakartaReplyDelete
Ross's Right Angle ross.indonesiamatters.com
where a very noisy, rude and rabid left-lib is hogging the comment space.
The US unemployment rate is 9% -- and that's if you believe the (lying) government figures. Unemployment for young workers (17-24) in the US is 20%. We ought to accept ZERO refugees, or immigrants of any kind, legal or illegal, until the economy recovers.ReplyDelete
You are right, of course. And it's a conclusive and modest proposal. Very logical and fair.
But since when has "being right" been of much use? Not since "being on the right" stopped being of much use.
Very well said Mark. This is what we need. Policy alternatives, not just complaining.ReplyDelete
You want to tell us that we in Europe get only 6% of all the refugees? Hard to believe it when I look around. I can't imagine how it must be in Anglo-countries then.ReplyDelete
"You want to tell us that we in Europe get only 6% of all the refugees? Hard to believe it when I look around. I can't imagine how it must be in Anglo-countries then."ReplyDelete
I agree this does appear a bit low, apparently, these are refugees who come into western countries through official programmes. There could be large numbers of asylum seekers coming to Europe unofficially and being let in, or economic migrants who are living in Europe illegally, which is probably why the Europeans don't let in many refugees under UN quotas.
I believe, Swedish has the largest number of refugees per capita of all the western nations.
The big difference is between the West and Asia and the Middle East. Rich Asian and Middle Eastern countries like Japan and Kuwait don't let into many refugees either officially or unofficially, and the UN doesn't seem to pressure them much, so there's an obvious double standard.
Yes, I understand that there are large numbers of illegal arrivals in places like the UK. I think the statistics quoted at the UN website are for asylum seekers who go through official channels, i.e. arrive in a second country and are then officially resettled in a Western country via the quota system. It is the US, Australia, Canada and Sweden who prop up the quota system.ReplyDelete
And, yes, the wealthier Middle-Eastern countries should be the ones accepting asylum seekers from the Middle-East. Instead, they are bringing in workers from Asia, while the Middle-Easterners are sent all the way to the suburbs of Malmo in Sweden or Melbourne in Australia.
I'd recommend reading this short item on the situation in Bahrain.
These people don't even see themselves as asylum seekers...they know who they are...they are invaders and soon to be conquerors.ReplyDelete
My Colombian friend once said in regards to the Mexican Illegals (she said this to my white teacher) "I'm so proud of my people. (and she put her hand on her heart) They are so strong culturally. Such strong, vibrant people...which is why they are spreading out, hopping across the border, expanding their culture"
That's not the exact words...the exact words were better....But she knew who they were...they know who they are, and they see themselves as achieving something great by taking over our country. It's a source of pride.
Western European Countries should not accept ANY asylum seekers.
You know me I'm a hardliner...but ignoring my pro-white all or nothing attitude...your proposals Mark are excellent, logical and fair. I go to the extreme right in order to make sure people move right :) They might not go as far as me...but hopefully enough to save society :)
Close the Borders.
Say that it is for environmental reasons, say that it is because the space monkeys told you so, we have no obligation as a nation state to anyone other than our own citizens.
If someone wants to come here they should have to prove that they are a net benefit to the country. And even then we should still say no most of the time.
Then maybe our citizenship would be worth something.
Nice blog Ross, interesting angle you have there.
"Close the Borders.
Say that it is for environmental reasons, say that it is because the space monkeys told you so, we have no obligation as a nation state to anyone other than our own citizens."
Yes. Or say it's because this land is ours.
Hey, have you seen this?
Close the Borders?ReplyDelete
And then wait for this ponzi nation to collapse.
Immigration 'is' the reason why the anglosphere is what it is.
Foreign students bring in billions of hard foreign currency, immigrants undercut the notional wage rate, they fund the housing market and provide a costless ready workforce.
Stop immigration and then we'll have to deal with the structural inequities built into our system and the elites will never let that happen.
Mark, an interesting education story.ReplyDelete
Hard to believe really.
"And then wait for this ponzi nation to collapse."ReplyDelete
Massively cut the size of government, to start cut the 700 million we spend on the ABC, the almost 3 billion a year we spend on Aboriginals, the billions we spend funding arts and humanities grants for pet left wing projects, fire the social workers and the youth workers, remove as many non jobs as possible, and put all these savings into pro-natalist tax cuts to bring our Birth-rate up to replacement level to support current welfare for the baby boom elderly.
To sustain the housing industry which underpins the economy simply remove all the red tape and set a single digit level of flat tax for all profits on housing schemes.
Ponzi schemes are rarely this easy to unravel.
***Asylum seekers should only be offered places in countries with a simlar standard of living.***ReplyDelete
And similar national iq. This avoids problems like you have in the outer suburbs of Paris where the frustrated lower iq groups have turned violent.
This paper by Garret Jones and Joel Schneider points out that national average iq is also a good predictor of immigrant productivity.
What's more important than anything is that Muslim asylum seekers must never, under no circumstances whatsoever, be placed in non-Islamic countries. To admit Muslims is to commit civilizational suicide, and it is therefore immoral to do so.ReplyDelete
"Close the borders?
And then wait for this ponzi nation to collapse."
The thing about Ponzi schemes, is that they always collapse. I don't see how open borders could change that basic flaw in their design as neither land nor people are limitless.
Give all the facts please. What percentage of that 90% do Australia take?.ReplyDelete
And even if it's 50% of that 90%, that does not mean we are taking our 'fair' share: taking population, facilities and land availability into consideration.
The 'Anglo' world built it's wealth through several hundred years of 'free workers' (ie several billion slaves) from many of the countries where we now take our migrants.
The 'Anglo' world built it's wealth through several hundred years of 'free workers' (ie several billion slaves) from many of the countries where we now take our migrants.ReplyDelete
Nonsense. There were debates in Australia in the 1800s about whether a labouring class should be brought in from countries like India. Such plans were rejected. Instead, Anglo-Australians did the tough labouring work. That was still overwhelmingly the case when I was growing up in the 1970s.
There were not several billion slaves in the world in the 1800s let alone in the Anglo countries. It was the ascent of Britain which led to the abolition of the slave trade, including the enslavement of Europeans in North Africa.
As if said,ReplyDelete
"The 'Anglo' world built it's wealth through several hundred years of 'free workers' (ie several billion slaves) from many of the countries where we now take our migrants."
That's funny because the Muslims and Africans had slaves too, as did lots of other countries, and not much wealth or productivity. That's a really great view of history you have there. Ask a miner who currently adds to the national growth of Australia whether our countires wealth comes from past slavery.
"Close the Borders?
And then wait for this ponzi nation to collapse."
There does seem to be a fear that closing the borders will lead to economic ruin.
Jesse_7 said..."There does seem to be a fear that closing the borders will lead to economic ruin."ReplyDelete
As far as I can tell there are no net economic benefits from third world immigration. People speak of this immigrant economic boom, but can never point it out. What can be pointed out however is the drain of resources in any multi-cultural society. Immigration program costs, integration costs, cost of policing, family reunion, health care costs and inevitable corruption costs.
Yes I agree. The only issue I can think of is that Western countries with larger populations generally have more economic clout, eg Germany over France, the US over the rest etc.ReplyDelete
"Rich Asian and Middle Eastern countries like Japan and Kuwait don't let into many refugees either officially or unofficially, and the UN doesn't seem to pressure them much, so there's an obvious double standard."ReplyDelete
African/Middle Eastern countries are currently housing the most refugees. Canada is no. 25, Australia is no. 33 and the USA appears to be absent from the list.
Otherwise, your arguments are well delivered and your logic is sound.