My question is.
Are there second generation doctors and scientists in those communities?
Are there skilled workers and business people coming from those communities.
Denying people enter your country based on statistics is like denying women school admission based on average IQ compared to men.
Statistics don't tell you anything about an individual.
As a sovereign state, any country have the right to control who is coming into their land.
And they should.
They should employ a vetting process to make sure people who want to come in are not criminals, are not taking advantage of you, are suitable to integrate and function in your society.
ON A CASE BY CASE BASIS.
There's a bunch of countries between Africa and Australia,
under international law,
if there was a political will, Australia could deny any refugee status, and grant temporary visa to those suitable for functioning in that society.
And that would be fine.
I think there are other valid questions countries like Australia (the USA, Frances, Germany, Russia, Spain, and all the major immigrant destinations) should ask:
· What have we done to contribute to these people’s displacement?
· How many weapons have we sold to the governments of these nations or even to militias that would be used to kill and force people into exile?
· What kinds of opportunities do we offer these people once they arrive to their host countries?
· What program of education and awareness are we running to make our citizens understand better the reasons why these people are coming (invading?)?
To stop receiving migrants from certain regions, whose 2nd or else generation end up engrossing the statics of criminality (or so the stats go) without analysis the causes of those stats is narrow-minded. The USA would have to get rid of all blacks, maybe revisit the “back-to-Africa” program, given the fact that blacks, accounting for 15% (?) of the population claim almost 40% of the pie in prisons. Should we ignore the reasons? I think that the documentary “13th” clearly summarizes for us all the intrigues behind those statistics.
We should not be that blind. Of course, history shows that we can and we will.
Venezuela is currently sending millions of people to the neighboring countries and we are already receiving reports of horrible crimes committed by Venezuelan citizens. I do not deny that possibility. I know as a fact that in this wave of migration (the third one) Venezuela is sending common people, people without resources, education or whose values were corrupted by years of discrimination (by the same government that swore to vindicate them and improve their condition) and marginalization. I know people with criminal records and questionable behavior who are now in Ecuador, Peru, Colombia and Argentina and every day I wonder when is it that I am going to read the news and find their names associated with some crime.
Does this mean that all these countries should stop receiving Venezuelans? How about the hundreds of thousands of professionals who are now making a difference in those countries? They are the living proof that the system we had was good, was actually one of the best in Latin America. There are more professionals of that generation waiting and hoping to leave and be welcomed somewhere else where they can put their talents to a better use. It would be criminal to force these professionals (I count myself as one) to die in their countries because the international community was unable or unwilling to do anything about it.
There are always 2 or more sides to a problem. The international community, those countries more affected by massive migration, can always contribute to improving the conditions in the countries that are sending their people out or provide at home a more suitable environment, free of discrimination and just at the time of correcting for those who inevitably end up in their backyards.
Social injustice is always the result of criminal minds operating before the blind eyes of those whose interest prevented them from doing what they could have done to stop it.
There is no “should.”
It’s up for each individual country to choose for itself.
I don't know if Australia should stop taking any refugee comma this is because I think people who are refugee should live by the law because they are only aliens to this nation who decides to help them , and if the safety of the parents' nation is compromised as a result of the violence and crime of refugees from war zone countries then it's better to stop taking them in or they can as well as conduct background checks on them before taking them in.
Although I don't know the laws of various countries concerning refugee taking in, i definitely know that they will be lost that will be guiding the life pattern through which refugees must live by I also haven't seriously send australia as a country that takes in refugee however in the united states there are laws concerning the way refugees can be taken in just like I mentioned earlier background checks are wisdom on them their criminal records are always checked however in the united states it is different they do not actually use statistics or the amount of crime committed buy a country in order to judge the way they taking refugees.
A country knows their policy and if their policy and laws permit them to continue taking in refugee then they can keep checking them before taking them in and not decided by the stats, it is not just african refugees who are prone to commit crime committing crime is an individual thing however if a country decides that there may be violence in the long run or increase in the rate of crime as a result of refugee then they can stop taking it in it's all actually depends on the safety of their country the safety of the parent nation in the first place
Taking refugees and assisting them is always good but should not be at the cost of national security. Not to forget that you can not help a fellow at the cost of your own security and in that sense it will be like inviting the unwanted happening.
Therefore if any country is taking refugees then it should enforce stringent measures upon them so that in no way such unwanted things would be allowed to happen and the law of the land should act as a deterrent to any such thing.
You have pointed it out very well and it is a fact. Humanity is good but humanity can not be exercised at the cost of national security and it is a harsh fact that the circumstances says the crime rate in some cases is really higher than the national average.
I think this is very subjective. It doesn't mean that those small minor stats apply to most second generation population of so co perceived high crime rates of their country. Well, I don't think that the crime rate of the country where the refugees is to blame for any increase in crime rate of the country they are currently residing in..
Crime usually comes from discrimination and poverty. Why some. Countries have a higher crime as compared to other countries is due to poverty. If i were to put my self in their shoes, imagining that I had no food to eat, what I would do is to do anything to have something to eat.
Not all refugees do that. The countries own citizens commit crime too and no one blames them even for violent crimes. However, that being said, I think the country that takes in refugees should try to address the issue of whether they could provide a good quality of life for refugees.
I do agree that Australia should cut down on the number of refugees until these issues are solved first.
Good points you raised up.
There are good people and bad people in every community. The key is PROPORTION.
Assessing intake of refugee On Case by case basis is definitely done in most countries. Taking in professionals from troubling countries is usually no problem.
The issue is taking in refugees with no skills and unfitting cultural backgrounds. It is impossible to tell whose children will become "successful" or at least NOT become criminals based on whatever information we can collect from the parents.
Now here is the power of statistics.
Based on the real statistics of crime rates in different second-generation communities, it is not far-fetched to project that the crime rates of children born to African refugees will be higher than that of non-Muslim Asian refugees. Thus, if we take in more non-Muslim Asian refugees and less African refugees, the resultant Australian national crime rate will be lower than if we were to take in more African refugees and less non-Muslim Asian refugees.
Background checks are often difficult to carry out as most of the self-proclaimed refugees either genuinely lost their documents or hid their documents purposely.
. Second generation African Australians have higher crime rates than Australian national average, it seems like Australia doesn't have good security huh?
There's nothing wrong in assisting fellow humans in distress but the country taking in the refugees should put measures in place to monitor the activities of those that they're taking in. Even if a country has a higher crime rate than average, that doesn't mean that everyone in such a country is into crime. Should the country taking in the refugees have a good security system, they will have nothing to worry about.