Australian Immigration Policy is argued and supported at the same time throughout its history, depending on the views of the governing political party. The main characteristic of the Australian Immigration Policy has been to keep the nation safe, which was obvious in the White Policy, where migrants from the southern Europe were not welcome in Australia. The discrimination of White Policy lasted until 1970es when it was finally abolished. The modern Australian Immigration Policy does not display any discrimination based on race, gender or disability and on surface is in accordance with the United Nations Statement on Human Rights. In community rarely, if ever, we can see a refugee with physical or intellectual disability as well as refugee suffering any terminal condition including AIDS. They are considered as a burden to the economy.
Skilled Migrants/Refugee intake
There is obvious welcome to skilled migrants who make 52 percent of yearly NSW intake of immigrants. Australian intake of skilled migrants is the largest in the world and it was 70 percent in 2011. As you can see Australia welcomes skilled migrants as a valuable asset to the economy. On the other hand it is less welcoming to refugees and asylum seekers, who make only 8 % of the yearly intake of immigrants. Australia could afford double intake of refugees and asylum seekers without any threat to the stability of population (O’Sulivan 2011). Basically there is no difference between asylum seekers and refugees, their lives are endangered. Only different labels based on immigration law and legality and illegality of arrival makes asylum seekers and refugees different.

Zorka I hope you get the results you need.
But too understand we ourselves do not understand the issue.
Now in my 66th year I have seen changes just in one lifetime.
The early fears at post ww2 Migration proved wrong, very wrong.
We gained a great deal and many, even including our Prime Minister is a migrant.
I think, firmly,our white Australia policy was Racist.
But like almost every living person, had no part to play in it.
The 1970,s saw boat people, Vietnam refugees, and yes racism,even me, finely balanced with the photos and story's from the communist take over.
A key, concern that many had gold and cash well beyond that most of us had, built concerns *are they refugees or economic refugees*
We know most became an asset for the country, but too a youth no longer controlled as at former home, often ran wild, it remains so today.
Notice a similarity with today?
Before we rush to judge Australians we should look at both sides, refugees, and ask those post ww2 migrants what they think.
I am sure you will find they too are concerned.
Concerned?
About separatism built in differences as seems the case with SOME Muslims and us.
I point too at growing concerns at the open door policy's that once welcomed every one to Europe.
And the growing, seemingly inevitable problems say in France and Briton, but include any country there.
Is Muslim integration an experiment some have put on both sides?
Are we both sides Lab Rats in a Social Engineering trial?
Will we in a century see our concerns unfounded, and that it worked.
Or in far less time live to regret it both sides.
That answer is to be found only in the vast Muslim majority who want only a better life ,it is them who can fix it not us.

By 'White Policy' you clearly mean the White Australia Policy, initially introduced in the Immigration Restriction Act of 1901. That was primarily against Chinese, and other Asians, with a clear intent to block immigration of non-Europeans. While there were worries about post WW2 immigration from southern Europe, that wasn't really part of the White Australia policy. In fact there was a lot of non-British/southern European immigration during the gold rushes, and many families, including mine have such long intertwined connections that apart from some handed down Italian (now often middle) names and recipes, you wouldn't know about the 1850s Italian ancestors.

However I'd agree with you on the apparent contradictions in the present policy or at least the way it's implemented, re skilled migration v. refugees. We only have to look at the convict history to realise that the least likely new arrivals often turn out to produce the most valuable citizens in later generations.

Dear Zorka,

The following website may help you to understand
the immigation policies in their proper context.
Until recent years, racist policies and practices were
embedded within Australian laws and institutions.
It's best to take a look at Australian legislation
and international law - to understand what and why
things exist the way they do today:

http://www.racismnoway.com.au/about-racism/understanding/index-what.html

Zorka lets also ask that you look at Europe.
In fact while I do not think this country has to defend any thing I recommend you do.
Migration both legal and illegal in Europe,of Muslim people.
Goggle that.
Deep and very real issues will be seen.
Not the lunatic from Norway, people not unlike you and me, all of us.
Pretending such thoughts expressed by ordinary folk are dirty is of little use.
Or that the fault, ALWAYS can be found in the country's welcoming refugees/migrants, is male cow dung!

I really appreciate your responses to my thread. I am not judging or criticizing, just trying to get my head around the Immigration Policy.
I do know that Australia has nothing to defend, still is the best country in the world to live in. I have my own bias, to be honest,I am refugee( 7 years in). i was lucky enough to be accepted and supported to live in Australia. I deeply appreciate the help I have received and still I am receiving. Not all of us have been lucky. Being passionate about social justice I do believe that the money skilled migrants earn and spend in Australia should work towards saving more refugees.
I know what is happening in Europe. My family lives there. I do know that Italy and Greece are full of illegal refugees. By the way
, one question?
Why asylum seekers are considered illegal and refugees legal> Basically they want to escape their countries for same reasons?

welcome bit late but in all truth while for some a resident racist I truly and warmly welcome you to our country yours now and mine.
I will put it in these words, we select Migrants.
Refugees, boat people at least select us.
A former conservative Prime Minister, not a bad man, first dropped the need for selection.
During the Lebanese civil war.
Me being a racist or realist you decide,says that bought about much of the friction between SOME, Muslims and Some OF US.

Dear Zorka,

You may find the following website of some
interest. It's an opinion piece written by
Malcolm Fraser, a former Liberal Prime Minister
of Australia who is very critical of the way the issue
has been politicised by some politicians to try
to use scare tactics for their political advantage:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/how-australia-can-solve-its-asylum-seeker-problem-20110624-1gjlt.html

Good Luck with your research on this issue.

Zorka, you wrote:

<< Australia could afford double intake of refugees and asylum seekers without any threat to the stability of population >>

Agreed.

I think that our immigration program should be about 90% refugees.

Immigration should be reduced to net zero so that we can achieve a stable population. At this level, which would be about 30 000 per annum as far as I can ascertain, we could take in more than twice as many refugees as we currently do.

But not asylum seekers. Australia should decide entirely which refugees are to come to this country, being those from anywhere in the world that are in the most need of resettlement.

<< Basically there is no difference between asylum seekers and refugees >>

While the big majority of asylum seekers are found to be refugees, some are not. The two terms are not the same. And asylum seekers are generally not as needy and are much more able to seek out asylum than those languishing in camps in Eritrea for example.

Sure, most asylum seekers have a very good reason for undertaking the treacherous and expensive journey to Australia. But, speaking in broad terms, they are not the most needy of people that Australia should be helping, we shouldn’t be tolerating porous borders and we should have full sovereign control over who comes here, as should all countries.

Australia’s humanitarian effort should be greatly improved, by increasing our refugee intake and by considerably increasing our international aid and focussing it much better on the things that cause people to become refugees ….while at the same time closing down onshore asylum seeking.

I am aware.
Understand, in depth.
My views brand me.
But I hold the view migration and refugee in take.
Should not be based on multi cultures.
How many can point to conflicts in this country from post ww2 migrants haveing both their culture and ours?
Tell me what imported religion has not lived side by side with ours with minimal problems.
Racist that I clearly must be, I think enclaves, from SOME within the Muslim faith,are deliberately to stop integration.
This year,on National Television, I saw in Lakemba, a female reporter asking about a religions holiday.
She was surrounded by women, the younger ones dressed in head covers very friendly.
Older ones, in my country hard eyed and NASTY as she asked.
One day the world will see integration leads to one,separation leads to hate.

Basically there is no difference between asylum seekers and refugees, their lives are endangered.
Zorka,
Yes, they do endanger their lives but, a big, huge but, are these people really refugees or are they on a mission to silently invade Australia ?
If so, then they're willingly risking their lives for an agenda. There's a huge difference between having to risk your live to get away from persecution & taking risks to carry out someone's orders to gradually bring this very same persecution to a peaceful country like Australia.

WOW :)
I would not think that there will be so many replies.
We all have our opinion, and that is OK, probably we can support our arguments too.
Thanks to all that replied, I have learnt from each post.
I tend to think that people that would undertake all this sufferings for some irrational goals are rather criminals. They compare to me to people using Centrelink ( many do not need to, I know them :), corrupted politicians, or any other criminal you name it. I am afraid that stereotyping and generalization of issues or people has made Australian Child Protection, Aged Care , Immigration worse that it could off been.
Thanks for links, they have been usefull

Dear Zorka,

Australia's cultural diversity is a strength
which makes for a dynamic society. Within a
framework of laws, all Australians have the
right to express their culture and beliefs.
May you be happy in this country that you've
chosen as your new home. And may the contribution
that you make be valued. No one should feel disempowered
by having their identity devalued. That is the
opposite of the democratic principle of equality and the
right of all people to be treated fairly.

I wish you All The Best.

Zorka,
Refugees are those our government has selected on the basis of need and we bring them here at our expense.

Asylum seekers is another name for illegal entrants. They are not looked on favourably by most Australians because they get here by buying their way, bribery and deceit. Firstly they fly to Malaysia (usually) then on to Indonesia. From there they pay far more than the air fare to enter without a visa, on a boat. They then deceive our officials with stories they have been coached in and any travel documents they may have had are destroyed beforehand. This is done to deliberately make it difficult for us to determine their bona fides. Most Australians believe we are being conned in this regard. Their object is to secure permanent residence for themselves and once that is obtained they can then bring the rest of their family here under the family reunion provissions.

Immigration.
There are some people who claim we are a multicultural county. I dissagree with that. I say we are a multi-racial country that allows the practice of some cultural aspects of some other cultures. You will notice that the basic foundations of our society, such as governance, defence, police, education, health system and our social standards generally, are all derived from the UK.

I cannot find one other culture that we wholly accept and we do not make specific provission for other cultures in law. For example polygamy, forced marriage, male dominance and the consumption of some foods are against our laws.

It is my belief that we should reduce our immigration to zero net and that we should discriminate on immigration, not allowing those groups that have demonstrated they cannot/wil not integrate. The reason for this is to prevent conflict and enhance social cohesion.

Changes need to be made to our immigration policy

Dear Zorka,

Contemporary expressions on Asylum seekers which have
emerged in recent years relate to notions of nationhood
which are seen as incompatible with diversity. These
beliefs may be expressed in various stereotyped views
of who the "real" Australians are. This form of thinking
is based on an ideology of national culture in which
minority cultures are regarded as "alien" and a threat
to social cohesion. They consist of pervasive cultural
assumptions where the customes and beliefs of the dominant
group in society are presented as the norm.

As a result, the status and behaviour of minority groups,
particularly those who are more visibly different, are
defined and judged with respect to the dominant group of
largely British and Celtic backgrounds.

These attitdues are widely discussed in the media where
they are presented as reasonable and commonsense and
reflected through media images that do not accurately
portray Australia's cultural diversity. In this way,
these ideologies are expressed and reinforced through a
process of group interaction and thereby absorbed into
popular culture.

Perhaps with time and education things may change. However,
its best to remember that in Australia up until recent years
these policies and practices were also embedded within
Australian laws and institutions and were inextricably
linked to the history of colonisation and migration in this
country. Prejudice and discrimination have been directed
towards many groups who arrived in Australia, in particular
towards groups from language backgrounds other than English,
despite the fact that many government migration schemes
invited people to settle in Australia.

Asylum seekers have a legal right to be in Australia. Australia
is a signatory to accept asylum seekers. And each must be
assessed according to the law.

Asylum seekers have a legal right to be in Australia.
Lexi,
You'll get no argument from anyone on this. You will however, get opposition aplenty for people using asylum as a smoke screen to invade Australia in exactly the same way Europe was invaded. We must help people in need , no question about it but we also must be extremely vigilant with those who are not but claim to be refugees. The simplest comparison is the drug situation. They'll try ANYTHING to hoodwink our authorities & by golly they find every loophole. It's of no use to just feel sorry for someone rolling up in a beat up old boat crying poor. I could do that too, as could anyone. We must put Australia's security first.

I reasonably I think am they.
So will expand on my thoughts,here in OLO we are a bit short on folk like me,working class blue collar workers.
Not known for PC use,and at my age almost never.
I picked the welfare from another crime story,a dreadful act beyond humanity.
12 kids never worked claims of possession of gold ,selling drugs criminals visiting, not your average home.
Those blue collar workers, call us what you want to.
We are Greek Italian Maltese,you name it that is us,well it was our fathers and mothers our grand parents.
We are still proud of our two homes.
Belly the old convict, had folk who came before us, in chains.
But he knows us we know him, we all share OUR country.
And we share, do we not Banjo? the fears that we are putting gravel in our Christmas pudding and calling it Cherry's in an effort to?
Look nice or blind our self?
I challenge for ever THE VIEW integration should have been replaced by MC.

When people ask, "Do you believe Australia should
become a multi-cultural society?" I always reply:

"It doesn't matter what you or I think, I can tell
you what it is, which is a society of tremendous
diversity."

In some schools, 90 percent of the students speak a
language other than English as their first language.
But many schools do not take this into account and
still emphasize teaching about Australia's ties with
England and the Commonwealth...

What exactly does integration mean? If it means devaluing
someone's identity - that's not on. Attitudes that were
common at the end of the nineteenth century are no longer
acceptable one hundred years later.

Anyway, as I stated earlier - although Australian
legislation relating to many aspects of behaviour makes
discrimination unlawful in several contexts, legilsation
of course cannot address the underlying social issues.
Education together with effective legislation provides
the best hope for developing a fairer and better society.

What exactly does integration mean?
Lexi,
my understanding of this term is that if you're given the privilege of being accepted in another country which is peaceful & values continued peace then integration means to play part in the continuation of this peace. To expect the host to conform to standards which you've forfeited in order to gain residency here is sufficient reason for the host country to issue you with a one-way ticket to whence you came from.
Lexi you most of all OLO posters always see the good & the persecuted side of things. Try to see the threat of the bad that come here under false pretences. Give those of us who have some insight the benefit of doubt sometimes instead of always to those who deceive you.
One thing is certain, integration does not mean for the host country to conform to the beggar.

Dear Individual,

I'm certainly not defending any fraudsters
who try to come to this country under false pretenses.
There are people who will try to misuse whatever
system is in place be it under the umbrella of
asylum seekers - or centrelink payments or whatever.
However I also feel that we can't tar everyone with
the same brush. Asylum seekers make up such a small
percentage of people - and it's not fair to blame them
for what a small number amongst them may or may not do.

I've just found out that a book entitled, "Australian
Lithuanians," by Professor Liuda Popenhagen -
is about to be launched here in Melbourne
and in other capital cities. As Dr James Jupp (Australia's
migration specialist) writes - "This interesting book
shows that a small ethnic minority can project and
advance its culture and language, while also taking a
full role in Australian life... an exhaustive study and
a model for other ethnic groups."

This contribution - is what I'm talking about.

Individual,
You may not argue with Lexi about asylum seekers having a legal right to be in Australia, but I must. The statement is incorrect and put out by advocates of the 'illegals' to project them in a better light.

An intending asylum seeker does not have a right to enter. They must obey a countries laws and our law states a non citizen must have a visa to enter Australia. Therefore any non citizen that enters without a visa is a law breaker.

Furthermore, it it because they have entered illegally that we can hold them in detention. We cannot, and do not, detain persons that enter legally. Because we are nice people, we have undertaken not to prosecute illegal entrants that subsequently apply for asylum.

Lexi also claims that cultural diversity is a strength. It does provide more variety in people but to claim strength seems more than abstract. How that could apply in a practical way is a mystery.

Lexi also states that all Australians have a right to express their culture and beliefs. That again is not correct. Only those aspects of foreign cultures that we allow. For example. a persons culture may include polygamy or the eating of dog meat or bull fighting and none of those are allowed. There are many foreign cultural matters that do not meet our social standards.

These terms are used by those to promote multiculturalism. Like the now disused slogan 'Unity in diversity' which is pure rot. Diversity does not promote unity in any way. In fact can lead to the opposite effect, because of cultural differences and age old hatreds between ethnic groups.

I am both amused and disturbed.
Pointing at the good settled migrants.
And hoping that will end talk about the not so good.
Denying the facts behind the Biker war.
It may be nice but what about the truth.
How do we talk about the fact second generation Australians hate us.
Is hiding it an answer.
Why is it we would except and complain about WASP family's all on the dole no intention to work.
But it is unnice to say it is wrong in SOME migrating groups?
How can we justify not wanting me to think just as generations of Aussie migrants and half of Europeans do?

Dear Banjo,

I am not going to get into an argument with you
about asylum seekers. Suffice to say that you
are merely stating myths not facts. Asylum seekers
are not "illegals."
You keep repeating the same old
nonsense as if it is fact. It's not and you should
find out your facts first before you continue to post.
BTW - 97 percent of all asylum seeker requests were
found to be genuine - and have been accepted into
Australia. Your problem seems to be quite an accute
one - one that you need to sort out.

Dear Belly,

Crime in this country has a variety of causes - the issue
is a complex one and it is somewhat simplistic to blame
"alien" cultures on people who have been in this country
for generations - as in the case of the Lebanaese.

However, you are entitled to your opinion, as I am to mine.
This doesn't mean that I am following some kind
of PC mode or that I am making excuses for the criminal
element.

Everyone in Australia must obey laws established
by governments. Equally all Australians are protected by
the rule of law. This means that no one is "above the law"
even if they hold a position of power, like
politicians or the police.

All Australians are equal under
the law. Which means that nobody should be treated
differently from anybody else because of their race,
ethnicity or country of origin, because of their age, gender,
marital status, or disability, or because of their
political or religious beliefs. Government agencies and
independent courts must treat everyone fairly.

Those are the foundations on which our values are based.

All Australians are equal under the law.
Lexi,
If you start looking into this you'll find that this is a mere slogan, nothing equal about it.
Ok, if you have enough money then yes it can be made to look like it but the general crap kicker has hardly any rights or aren't you watching what's going on around us ?
Hopefully, once we have a new conservative Government some decency will creep back into our judiciary & legal system but that's still some time away.

Lexi,
No matter how much you would like to believe it, or how many times you say it. Non citizens do not have any right to entery into Aus.

You are the one peddling myths.

All non citizens require a valid visa to legally enter. That is fact. Otherwise they are deemed illegal.

In relation to cultural activities. All persons in Aus, citizen or not, are required to obey our laws. No one has a right to conduct or practice any activity, cultural or otherwise, that is contrary to our laws.

These matters have been stated many times on OLO and you have been around long enough to know that. However I am very persistant and every time I come across the incorrect postings I shall correct them.

Your spin abd false statements need to be corrected.

Dear Banjo,

You appear to have a comprehension problem.
Right from the very beginning I have stated
(including in my last post) that evryone has
to obey the laws of this country. Kindly
re-read my posts.

As far as asylum seekers are concerned - kindly
do your research concerning their legality.
They do not need a visa to enter this country.
Australia is a signatory to an agreement -
a legal and binding agreement to assess anyone
asking for asylum. Check this out for yourself.
They have a legal right to ask for asylum.
As I stated previously - 97 per cent of those
who applied for asylum were found to be genuine
refugees.

http://unhcr.org.au/unhcr/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=46&Itemid=92
It can be read in depth or flicked through.
But I think these world wide refugee figures from 2010 are worth a look.
Other country's get 20 times our number.
And we take more as an average.
But look at the size of the problem, then, it may well have grown.
World Wide the idea of both controlling and even stopping the flow can not be over looked.
Support, for country's they run away from seems a better answer

Thank You ,
you have helped me a lot to understand how complex is the question I am trying to understand.
I do not know much about law. As a social worker I believe in good and fair.
I live in Australia for 7 years now, and I love it, i am happy here. It does not mean that I agree on government policies. They could be better, especially Immigration Policy and Mental Health Policy. I doubt that asylum seekers are the biggest issue. Honestly we are talking about less than 2% of all immigrants.
Also I agree who ever said that laws must be followed otherwise no one is safe.
I have noticed from my working experience that there is no refugees with physical disabilities. Australia signed first the UN Convention against discrimination based on disability.
How fair is to welcome capable and highly educated people, and abandon ones that are less capable?. I am wandering which country i s concerned about disable people whose life is in danger>