http://www.pwrdf.org/stories/refugees-and-migrants-stories/

If you scroll down to the item “talking about refugees”, from June 8th, 2009, the interview is there.

http://www.pwrdf.org/stories/all-stories/stories/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnewstt_news=535

Elise, in response to your suggestion that we should see if ‘genuine’ refugees would self-select by having the UN run camps, I explained that camps already exist and that people are in those camps, on average, for 17 years. The number of 9 million from 1993 is not out of date…it was given to offer a comparison between then, and now. Got it? The length of time has increased to 17 years, from 9 years in 1993. From those camps, Australia is one of the countries that accepts refugees once there status has been verified by the United Nations….you see, the “Elise Solution” already exists.

So far you have called me daft and a twerp, your obvious contempt for me and what I have to say is one thing, but I’m not the one in need of an education about the difference between a refugee and an asylum seeker. I know the difference, I’m saying that people seek asylum because of the failings of the refugee resettlement programs, your suggestion however reinvents the refugee program and sees long waits as desirable to weed out the ones who aren’t ‘genuine’ refugees.

Obviously, for some of the long running conflicts in Africa, people are effectively refugees for years, because the meatheads back home won’t bury their hatchets. That has nothing to do with Australia’s processing of asylum seekers.

The conflict in Sri Lanka is long running too. There are camps housing refugees from that conflict. I’m simply saying that the “Elise Solution” is far from being a solution to the problem of asylum seekers, but rather it is a contributing factor as to why people choose the alternative.

BTW: Did you look at the report on the Hungrybeast?…because those terrible journos you mentioned also quoted the statistics about being the second highest resettlement country [per capita] that you have quoted above. So which is it? …are they pot stirring, or presenting reliable factual information?

A quote of statistics from 1993 is somewhat out of date, wouldn’t you say?

Furthermore, you are blending “refugees” who are not seeking asylum, but simply trying to avoid a war zone, with processing of asylum seekers.

Obviously, for some of the long running conflicts in Africa, people are effectively refugees for years, because the meatheads back home won’t bury their hatchets. That has nothing to do with Australia’s processing of asylum seekers.

Here is what Oxfam has to say about the statistics for Australia:

“During 2005-2006, 14 144 visas for protection in Australia were granted to persons fleeing persecution or conflict in their home country. Ninety per cent (12 758) of the total visas were granted to refugee applicants who have applied offshore. These applicants have either been referred to Australia’s resettlement programme by the UNHCR (6022 people), or have been proposed by family members or organisations in Australia under the Special Humanitarian Programme (6736 people). The remaining 10 per cent of visas granted were granted to asylum seekers who applied for protection after arriving on Australia’s shores (1386).

Australia ranks 28th in the world in terms of its sharing of the global burden of refugee protection. In the Asia-Pacific region Australia accepts fewer refugees than China (301,041), India (139,283), Nepal (126,436) and Thailand (117,053).

However, in terms of permanently resettling refugees, Australia is now the second highest resettlement country in the world, behind the United States.”

Certainly not more. ABC journos, News Ltd journos…You pick the difference.

I know they bloody fudge numbers you twerp. I was interviewed for a documentary and had to argue vigorously to make them take out a gross (doubling) exaggeration. ABC journos, no less. They argued at length that it would “sound more impressive” and “noone would know”, etc.

You can find it in the a leaflet produced by Caritas, available in PDF form called “Refugee Myths and Realities”.

You can find it mentioned in this interview with Tom Clark from the centre for refugee studies: http://www.pwrdf.org/stories/all-stories/stories/?no_cache=1&tx_ttnewstt_news=535

Other links mention that it is 17 years, having increased from 9 years in 1993.

It’s shocking enough that we may wish it to be untrue, but why would you think they are trying to wind people up with made-up data? It doesn’t seem unreasonable with millions and millions of refugees world-wide, and only small percentage of them being resettled every year, that 17 years is the average time spent in limbo.

BTW: gawd forbid that some journalists actually go out and find out the figures and condense them into information that people can understand, even if they contradict our own prejudgments. The “I can’t find it on Google, so it can’t be true, and therefore I can presume the journos are shit-stirring”, conclusion you come to is kind of bewildering.

Don’t be daft FB. I think 17 years is far too long, if that really is the correct figure.

I must be delinquent with my googling skills, because a permutation of refugee/camp/internment/years/17 years, etc did not yield a definative statement that the AVERAGE refugee internment was 17 years. There was ONE case where some family spent that long, in a refugee camp in Nepal.

TV journalists are a bit prone to sensationalism to wind people up. They may have “fudged” the numbers. It would not be the first time.

It was good, I missed big ben tho.