I think I know what he meant ...
Australia is far tougher on refugees than many western countries. Unlike Canada, they are more commonly detained while they await their hearings for refugee status.
People forget that the UN's own principles on refugees dictates that a person who seeks refuge from their own nation shall declare themselves in the first safe haven they reach. Quite often, for both Canada and Australia, refugees have passed through SEVERAL countries capable of offering safe refuge, and yet many refugees choose not to stay there, and instead move on to the country of their choice, which is not the intention of the UN at all.
Every industrialized country receives a quota of convention refugees, in order to ensure that the distribution is fair and does not over-burden nations unfortunate enough to be located nearest to a war-torn country. But many refugees choose to skip the line, because they have the means or money or desire, and they choose one of several nations they have heard are more favourable to live in or raise children in, such as Canada, the UK and Australia. Australia makes their country a less attractive choice by imprisoning refugees until their matters are decided by their courts, and god bless 'em for it. If every western country did the same thing, the UN's intention on refugees would be followed more closely.
As for immigration points systems, it's all bunk.
Nearly every industrialized nation requires immigrants, and has a selection system for admitting them, based on all sorts of categories and criteria. Canada and Australia are no different. Both countries will allow you to immigrate if you are wealthy enough and can meet a basic standard, and it usually involves an investment scheme.
for posting this info!
right in Sydney and other places whos loyayity is elsewhere >
