With the ever increasing numbers of refugees due to such things as global warming, human rights violations, wars and lack of food and water, a world solution to the refugee problem should be considered.

If a world staging area was set up by the UN, all refugees from all countries could be sent there for processing and re-assignment. Each country in the UN could then be allocated their fair quota. This would relieve the problem of illegal immigrants, as all people wishing to achieve refugee status would either make their way to the staging area or be transported there if they try to jump the queue.

Besides being allocated to different countries, sustainable societies could be established in the Sahara Dessert using a similar method as outlined in my thread "Sustainable Societies".

It is anticipated that large solar thermal plants are going to be established in North Africa, see

http://tinyurl.com/y85uymd

A small amount of their generated energy could be used to establish inland salt water lake(s) which could serve as the basis for fish, solar thermal desal, hydroponics and eco housing, hence creating new sustainable living areas for refugees.

Willie,
North Africa ? hmmh ! interesting indeed, could possibly succeed because (to my limited knowledge) they don't (yet) have an EPA. I recall reading about the same type of scheme for Lake Eyre (the Bradford Scheme I think) which would create a wetter climate & good agriculture conditions. The problem would be to stave off the maggoty opportunist developers hijacking the scheme. It should ease the pressure on the coastal regions. Would this ease the problem of refugees ? Climate Change refugees yes but political ? Unfortunately, I simply can't see an end to them.

Willie, you've got to be kidding.

I find it hard to believe anyone could be so silly as to put their future into the hands of the bureaucrats at the UN.

There has never been a more corrupt, or dysfunctional organisation in the history of man.

Disbanding the whole thing would do more to help mankind, than having it involved in anything.

Valid point Hasbeen but mere acronyms. UN, ALP etc....
This ignoramus has long been supportive of such schemes because apart from creating better conditions these schemes offer something that most others don't - hope. A huge inland sea (not entirely artificial I might add) would appear to almost certainly cause a weather pattern positive to the environment. I have never been to Lake Eyre but what I read & see in documentaries the region flourishes when flooded. would it really be against nature to help it keep these conditions ? And, an increase in population there would impact less than on the coast.
This is a super subject. Let's hear from the pragmatists of this land.

Willie,

I'm not sure if the focus of your post is on the refugees or the sustainable societies.

In regards to the refugees, my view is that a person should be considered a refugee only until they reach ANY country where they are no longer at risk or persecution etc.

If they continue their journey after that point, they are no longer seeking refuge and should be considered immigrants.

From what I recall we already had one that worked.

Labor has weakened its rigor and now pretends to be surprised by the new flood of refugees it has created, that will cost the country countless millions.

WILLIE

Nice to see some lateral thinking being applied to one of the world's truly intractable problems, but I can’t see a 'world staging area' for refugees providing a likely solution.

There were an estimated 14 000 000 refugees at the end of 2008 and numbers have been as high as 21 000 000 during the last decade. That many refugees cannot possibly be accommodated in one place. Besides, the majority travel by foot and seek protection in countries immediately next to their own. Having one world location would necessitate an impossible journey for most.

Refugee camps to date have never had a 'queue' so I’m not sure how you think a staging area of this size could suddenly manage one. Even if it could, the crux of the problem would remain, that is that most developed countries refuse to shoulder their fair share of resettling the world’s refugees.

Ah, another one of your “mistakes” Bronwyn.
1) The there is “ no queue” spin:
There is a queue, the Aust Govt (unlike most others) gives the UNHRC a guaranteed 12,000 intake-quota of “refugees” every year . These would normally be drawn from the most needy in the camps, but when the boats arrive on our northern shores, the number accepted from the boats diminishes the places available from the camps.Now, of course, you can argue that 12,000 is too small a quota ( & I’m sure that Bronwyn will—she’d no doubt like 120,000)-- but, that is a different argument! And, whatever the quota you set there’d always be opportunists trying to go one (or 120,000) better .

2) The “fair share” of the resettlement spin:
The whole proposition of a –fair share –is a farce .

Asylum seeking has become primarily about getting a meal-ticket in a major industrialised country.

If sanctuary is what is being sought –and not economic advantage – there is no reason why permanent re-settlement needs to be skewed towards the advanced countries—how about South Georgia (Island)!

And don’t think its all about war or major upheaval . We already refugee advocates, currently, pushing the line that because countries like Mexico are not able to guarantee law-and-order across the full breadth of their domain (and what country can!) it is sufficient cause for such foreign nationals to qualify for asylum, in the US or Canada. And others, pushing the line that spouses on tourist visas/visits may claim asylum from an abusive partner ( and thereafter obtain residency , reconcile with the abuser, and sponsor the abusers residency as well).

Willie,
In a recent email to Kevin Rudd, Prime minister, I did last month repeat my recommendation that all refugees should be handed over to a UN refugee committee and it processes each person as to the date of arrival.
That means, that if two refugees leave their homeland and one goes across the border and register there and the other travels at cost to Australia and weeks later register then both can end up in the same UN refugee camp and the one who register across the border may earlier be considered for any State to accept as a refugee. Now, implementing this scheme means any person wanting to be refugee would do better to register across the border then waste weeks to travel to Australia at huge cost and end up being later for consideration.
.
With this system you also dis-encourage anyone to come to Australia because the time loss to travel makes them to be later registered and also even if they arrive in Australia they get handed over to the UN (United Nations) refugee committee and it can then take them to any country that may accept this refugee. As such, no guarantee that travelling to Australia will entitled the person to stay here as the person might very well be accepted in Greenland with the Eskimo’s and then decide that after all he rather goes back to his homeland then to be in the snow.
.
What we need to do is to make it unattractive for anyone to travel longer then what is required to the nearest UN refugee camp.
If people become aware that spending a lot of money on people smugglers to get to Australia only then to be transferred to perhaps a UN camp in the middle East then they more then likely might think twice before wanting to travel to Australia.
.