Immigration is an ever-present issue in the political debate. Discourse on immigration policy has still been dominated by the need to find a solution to the 950 refugees, currently stuck on offshoring processing centers. This issue is complicated by the need to counterbalance resettlement, whilst, preventing the practice of
On Friday January 27th, US President Donald Trump presented an executive order temporarily banning all entering refugees, as well as citizens of seven nations; Iran, Iraq, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Syria, and Yemen. Titled: “Protecting the Nation from Foreign Terrorist Entry into the United States,” the ban extends for 90 days
Politicians throughout Europe, America and, most recently, Australia, have enforced stricter immigration policies in attempts to prioritise employment of native workers. However, we must question whether these policies are based on objective evidence of immigrants stealing jobs? More often than not, this is not the case. Economic literature suggests that
The Comprehensive Plan of Action for Indochinese Refugees (CPA) has been praised for upholding ‘international solidarity’ and responding to what was the burgeoning refugee crisis of 1989. It has also been criticised for its execution, with critics arguing that it is an example of international buck-passing and questionable compromises.
Republished from The Conversation By Andrew Jakubowicz, University of Technology, Sydney The announcement of the formation of a Migration Council of Australia and its launch by the Governor General on August 1, confirmed by Department of Immigration and Citizenship official Gary Fleming at the Settlement Council of Australia conference in