Once again, a biased piece from someone who wants to denigrate Australia and tell us how mean we are through a selective use of data.

This from the Refugee Council in early 2012, despite it also noting that “Refugee resettlement to Australia is now at one of its lowest points ... since introduced in 1977. The 2010-11 resettlement program was the fourth smallest in 34 years – and on a per capita basis was the second smallest program in 35 years..

“However, when all these measures are looked at together, it is reasonable to say that Australia is in the top 20 or so for the number of refugees afforded protection and in the top 25 on a per capita basis.
Among the 44 industrialised countries UNHCR includes in its asylum trends analysis, Australia was third overall in 2010 for refugee recognition and resettlement and sixth on a per capita basis behind Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada and Austria. When the same statistics are viewed over eight years, Australia was fourth overall (behind USA, Canada and UK) and eighth per capita (behind Malta, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg and Canada)”.

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/resources/intakesub/2012-13_IntakeSub.pd

< Australia received only 23,434 refugees in all categories under UNHCR mandate in 2011. This is puny compared with other rich countries. And nowhere near as generous as many poor countries. Almost 10 million refugees were relocated worldwide. Australia ranks 47th in the world. >

Eh?

We are supposed to have an annual intake of about 13 000, as part of our formal immigration policy. And any onshore or fly-in asylum seekers that are accepted as refugees displace the same number of people waiting in refugee camps.

Isn’t this the way of it? This is what we have been told. So what’s with the extra ~10 000??

Australia ranks 47th in the world on a total numbers basis. But it is very different on a per-capita basis. The number of refugees accommodated compared to the number of established citizens is a much more meaningful measure. Australia ranks very well by this measure.

"The second is that the problem is partly one of Australia's own making. Australia has contributed to the destabilisation of several countries through its support for US efforts to secure Middle East oil through destructive invasions."

The importance of this observation by Alan cannot be stressed enough. Not only is Australia more a target for terrorism but we are also more a target for asylum seekers.

The gigantic capitulation by Gillard this week is breathtaking. That she is using the findings of a six-week report to justify her stubborn refusal over four years to change course on refugees is typical of her cunning.

Saying sorry for her endless incompetence is something you'd better not hold your breath waiting for.

The sooner Australia sees the back of Gillard the better.

http://dangerouscreation.com

There are a lot of debatable assertions in this article; for instance:

"It disputes Opposition leader Tony Abbott's assertion that refugee boats can safely be turned back to Indonesia"

It does so because it is assumed the occupants of these boats will scuttle the boat; other than this bit of calumny about Abbott, as usual, there is no reason why boats can't be towed back to Indonesia, bearing in mind a lot of these boats send out distress calls from WITHIN Indonesia's coastal territory.

And these just about sum up the "asylum" racket:

"It offends Greens leader Christine Milne who claims the report advocates a return to 'the bad old days of offshore processing'.

It disappoints refugee support groups by recommending removal of family reunion concessions for arrivals by boat.

And it criticises the role of the High Court. 'Currently, scheduled and prospective involuntary removals are impeded by an impending High Court decision raising issues of procedural fairness ...'"

The Greens, refugee activist groups, and activist, opportunistic and creative lawyers are the groups promoting a manufactured crisis to which this article adds a faux moral dimension; that moral dimension ignores the over-riding factor of the need for Australia to have control of its borders and for there to be a criteria for rejection of those "asylum" seekers.

That criteria should weed out criminals, extremists and anticipate future social issues such as the demand for Sharia law being made by Islamist "asylum" seekers.

This article and others made by advocates of the refugee industry ignore this right and need and as such are doing this country a big disservice

< The second is that the problem is partly one of Australia's own making. Australia has contributed to the destabilisation of several countries through its support for US efforts to secure Middle East oil through destructive invasions. >

I’m not so sure that this is true. Australia in its support of the US could be viewed as being part of an international effort to try and bring unrest in the Middle East and elsewhere to an end or to stop it from getting out of control.

If Australia is being viewed as part of the cause of the flight of asylum seekers from this part of the world to its shores, then it is surely not a good thing to be accommodating these people, if they harbour a huge grudge against Australia for causing them such upheaval in the first place!

I am generally supportive of Angus Houston's asylum seeker review committee recommending an increase in refugees to 20,000, rising to 27,000 over five years. They did not recommend a concomitant cut in skilled immigration, however, and have even recommended an additional 4000 to family reunion. All this causes a further blowout in population size which is already growing at an unsustainable rate (300,000 or so last year). As a semi-arid country, we do not have the capacity to keep on absorbing ever-growing numbers of people. For the author of this article to compare France's and Germany's intake on the basis of relative geographical size is sheer nonsense. You don't put people in the Sahara Desert, not do you put them in the Simpson Desert. It's a question of resources, not least water, that determines carrying capacity.
By all means increase the refugee intake but there has to be a proportional cut in skilled immigration. And let us not forget that there are 42 million refugees or displaced people in the world. A cut off point has to be made somewere - we can't take them all. And we can really only take as many as we can provide services for, not least educating children who don't speak English

*The second is that the problem is partly one of Australia's own making. Australia has contributed to the destabilisation of several countries through its support for US efforts to secure Middle East oil through destructive invasions.
If Australia is being viewed as part of the cause of the flight of asylum seekers from this part of the world to its shores, then it is surely not a good thing to be accommodating these people, if they harbour a huge grudge against Australia for causing them such upheaval in the first place!*

Ah the penny drops...... of course Australia is part of the cause and yes we are a target because of it.

* Australia in its support of the US could be viewed as being part of an international effort to try and bring unrest in the Middle East and elsewhere to an end or to stop it from getting out of control.*

What international effort? Do you mean the token handful of forces that are supposed to legitimise the US invasion of what were sovereign countries?

It was a huge back down by Gillard! So, did the endless opposition by the cock-a-hoop crowing opposition give her any other choice?
Moreover, she simply could not sit on her hands while even more people drowned!
Once the laws are amended to once again legalise offshore processing, the govt would be free to try its luck with Thailand or East Timor both UNHR signatories.
If Sovereign nations Thailand or East Timor or Papua New Guinea, then sent some to Malaysia, Abbott would be powerless to prevent it.
Nor could he prevent the acceptance/resettlement of even more genuine refugees?
However, we do need better methods of establishing refugee bona fides.
Simply relying on human interview skills has seen some of the criminal cartel that is trafficking in human misery, reportedly able/allowed to infiltrate; and continue to run their trafficking operations with complete impunity.
When irregular arrivals and other refugees are accepted, they ought to go live where they are sent, rather than into yet another problematic/crime riddled capital city ghetto, like Lakemba, which is often referred to as little Lebanon, and nearly as lawless?
We also need to do something about our homeless and the youth unemployment rate, before we start routinely resettling irregular arrivals, regardless of the manner of their arrival!
Absolutely agree the no advantage rule for richer refugees, and no family reunion rights for irregular arrivals.
I mean accepting one, may mean making arrangements for five or six or more, multiplied by 27,000!
A regional solution/cooperation, will surely focus on alleviating the refugee load carried by near neighbours? Either by sourcing our share/intake from near neighbours, and further assisting them with the costs imposed by this tide in human misery!
Rhrosty.

I fully agree, popnperish. I made similar comments on another thread:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5310#144177

As one might expect, the greens were/are busy rejecting the new refugee arrangements.
First they claimed that people, families, women and children were to be locked up.
Absolutely wrong, they will have the freedom of both Islands and free to wander where they may, with only a very reasonable rational curfew, to limit their roaming.
Moreover, they'll receive far better treatment and far more freedom, than those refugees rotting in prison camp like conditions, unable or unwilling to pay people smugglers, to transport them to Australia.
Anyone/everyone has the right to seek asylum, and having found said safety/sanctuary, anywhere, be it Thailand, Malaysia or Indonesia, cease to be refugees or asylum seekers, but rather, intending migrants!
Intending migrants need to seek and gain permission to settle, from the intended host nation. Rather than destroy their personal identification, then engage a criminal cartel/organisation, to smuggle them across our maritime borders!
Only those with something to hide, destroy priceless documentation; without which, they may well wait years/decades longer to be permanently resettled?
At least this was the case, when we and we alone were in charge of our migration/refugee resettlement policy!
Again, facts that are routinely ignored by the less than rational green advocates/acolytes!
Also routinely ignored, are the nearly one thousand drowned somewhere between Christmas Island and Indonesia, since 2001!
It's perfectly okay to build dream castles in the clouds, but it's never reasonable or advisable, to take up permanent residence in them?
Rhrosty.

<< It was a huge back down by Gillard! So, did the endless opposition by the cock-a-hoop crowing opposition give her any other choice? >>

She certainly had other choices, Rhrosty - to do nothing, or to immediately embrace a total emphatic policy platform in order to stop the boats forthwith.

She’s gone part of the way, which really amounts to a half-arsed effort!

Sure, it is a major shift. But if she was going to make such a shift, then why wouldn’t she do it emphatically?

TPVs, mandatory detention with reasonably long minimum periods of detention no matter how easily claims might be processed as part of a strong deterrence policy, turning boats when it is deemed safe to do so, etc, etc.

This is what the majority of Australian voters want. She’d win a great deal of very badly needed support if she went the whole hog!

And the other major part of this whole story should be a detailed and frequent message put out by the government telling the people just how good our offshore refugee programs are by world comparisons and how our humanitarian aid is being spent…… and working on a refinement of this aid so that it is geared towards addressing refugeeism and sustainability…… and an increase in our offshore refugee intake.

In short, Australia is a pretty good humanitarian country. And we would remain so if the boats were stopped. In fact, we’d be a better one. Then with a bit of effort directed in the right places, in place of so much effort and money being directed at the facilitation of onshore asylum seeking, we could become a really good humanitarian country.

It’s great to see the Greens pushed out of the picture with their ridiculous agendas. Also Julia should be congratulated for her acceptance and implementation of the Houston report. None of the current crisis would have happened had silly Kevin kept his hands off the Pacific solution. I suggest we promote him a specially created position called “Gatekeeper of Nauru” or perhaps “Minister for Home Insulation”.

The vision of 27,000 unskilled emotionally damaged and probably welfare dependant arrivals each year after 2017 is rather disturbing. Sounds like a classic recipe for an underclass.

And again all the same liars come out to play.

ASylum seekers are the ones we owe protection to, we don't owe anything to those overseas.

We now have only two decent honest men in our parliament who understand the law.

"We now have only two decent honest men in our parliament who understand the law."

That would be Abbott and Morrison. (good to see them rubbing Juliar's nose in it.)

The Greens just make it up as they go along.

No Shadow, they are all breaking the law on the pretext of saving lives but really simply further punishing innocent people.

There is no such thing as a proper way to come here, they just have to get here and to criminalise one method again flies in the face of the law.

For the first time in decades refugee laws were working as designed by the UNHCR and as they work all over the world.

But whiney cry babies here refuse to tell the truth about that, much easier to punish people.

The deportations scheduled have all been decided based on illegal and flawed assessments.

Why shouldn't the people apply to the high court.

The author of this article not only lacks a common understanding of this specific issue, but totally fails when it comes to the greater problem facing Australia, a clearly unsustainable population growth mantra.

For the initiated, population issues are about demographics, women's rights, economic development, and impacts on ecosystem function and integrity for subsistence. Yet, none of the usual or obscure ideas about population growth and its dangers have been embraced with any hope of unifying people to tackle the population problem.

With 7 billion people, and more, it is time to at least fight for consensus that much more growth, whether it be population, economic or social is impossible. If you believe in this mantra then you must support lower per-capita well-being, financial success and societal cohesion, not to mention the ever increasing destruction of our soils, fresh water, fish stocks, native vegetation and a wealth of vital resources within a sustainable ecosystem.

Even those well versed in overpopulation, trying to focus the world on the problem, may fall into the camp of many more people supposedly being sustainable. What they invariably are not taking into account is energy resource limits and planetary limits. This is a critical failure at all levels and one that will be the catalyst for serious discussion in the very near future.

We live in a pro-natal society that worships parenthood and suffer with successive governments that encourage financial incentives to boost our so-called ‘low population’ growth rate. It’s time we got rid of these ridiculous incentives and educate people on birth control and abortion.

We live on a finite planet, Australia has a very limited ability to increase its population from that which it already is, never mind the minor impact of these ‘refugees’, we should all worry about the bigger picture

“and there are 42 million refugees or displaced people in the world.”

I suspect this is rather a fluid figure adaptable to change. While refugee camps around the world are stacked to the brim, there is somewhat of a disincentive to leave your current oppressed situation, as bad as it is, to move out of the frying pan and into the fire.
However if some mug first-world country on the Pacific Rim should start getting soft and allowing in displaced people hand over fist, then obviously that would be an incentive to start the trek from wherever you are amongst the billions of people throughout the world who live cheek by jowl with malnutrition or oppression or both.

It’s like one of those automatic cat feeders for when you go away and leave moggy on his own. There’s just a small handful of crunchies at the base of the dispenser with the rest stacked up vertically inside the container. However the more he consumes the more space is made for further amounts to fall down and to feline it is just a never ending supply.

"We live on a finite planet"

I'm sick of reading this rubbish! Just one minute of thought would prevent you from repeating this stupid catch phrase. I'm assuming you exclude the suns energy and all things derived from this energy from your calculations? Now if you want to worry about something, worry about a few billion years from now when the sun goes supernova.

How can anyone justify the intake of the refugees when in Australia we have in excess of 200,000 homeless people due to very limited affordable housing.

Nearly every day we hear via the media a mass redundancies in the work place. They fail to point out or report the flow on effect of redundancies in industries which supply parts to the companies that the media reported.

Refugees have a far different culture than our culture and many of them are against our culture and do not want to assimilate with our culture.
They are attempting to have Sharia law introduced as law in Australia.

Our taxes pay for their welfare and will continue to do so.

They get affordable housing when many of our own people can not.

Apart from a minority of do gooders most Australian are against and fear them.

And no I'm not rascist I'm concerned for the future of Australia.

Interesting discussion. Thank you, all.

Key questions which seem to have emerged, perhaps indirectly, are:

(a) What is a fair number/proportion of the world's 10 million displaced people for stable countries to receive each year?

(b) What are the criteria we should apply to apportion refugees among receiver countries?

(c) How is Australia placed around the globe as a receiver country relative to other nations?

Just as food for thought, some further posers:

(d) What proportion of Australia's vast land mass is arable but under-utilised for food or other production at present?

(e) What is the quantum of water Australia allows to go to waste each year (noting that recently part of Queensland the size of Germany and France together was under water)?

(f) What quantum of high-grade, high-protein, low-fat meat is allowed to go to waste each year in Australia's kangaroo culls? (Delicious too.) and

(g) What obligation does Australia have as the nation with the best-managed economy in the world in modern history (as measured by GDP growth, terms of trade, interest rates, inflation, employment levels, income levels, taxation, superannuation, the exchange rate, triple A credit ratings, pensions and benefits and poverty rates)?

Cheers, AA

Well "Stezza" if you can prove me wrong, direct me to the scientific evidence that states otherwise?

It is blatently obvious to anyone with a modicum of intelligence that our currrent way of life (the modern western way of life) is somehow sustainable, I will bow to your mantra if you can prove otherwise.

We (humanity) have a finite number of resources that can be exploited.

We have a number of options to develop, value add, and provide opportunities for a 'limited' number of people on this planet.

What are you prepared to 'give up' to ensure that the 3 billion odd people who don't currently benefit from our currently lifestyle ensure that we all become equal, food availability, freedom from oppression, family planning, scure economic futures et al.

Delusion and the need to protect yourself from the realities of life appear blatant in your posting.

We all "share" this planet, although in very unequal terms.

If you think we can modify the current western model to accommodate those outside the mainstream theatre, please give me a model that proves it can be done, otherwise put a cork in it.

Geoff

Alan, I think you need to get your mind around the fact that Australia cannot save the world. With world population increasing at 250'000 a day, there are bound to be more clashes over land, tribalism and all the rest. But moving say 2 million Hazaras from
Afghanistan to Australia, to make room for more Taliban, is not going to solve anything, except to create a Hazarastan in Australia and make room for even more Taliban to flourish in Afghanistan.

The flood of asylum seekers into Europe has indeed created one disaster after another. A great many of those are simply people from the third world, wanting a first world lifestyle. The UN Convention is full of holes and needs to be updated.Why should we be so foolish and copy Europe?

Tribalism has gone on forever, trashing Australia is not the way to solve it. We take our share.

Perhaps the UN should get serious about family planning, so that there are not all these conflicts over land, as the population keeps increasing

"Geoff"

I'm not sure that I really need to prove to you that the sun generates energy, or that the sun is outside of earth. I will admit that this resource one day will also be exhausted. However, I wonder if you know if there are a finite number of stars? Also, when do you predict we will run out of matter?

However, that "We (humanity) have a finite number of resources that can be exploited." This really shows your small mindset when it comes to predicting future events. With this way of thinking I'm afraid you will never discover or invent anything useful for humanity and will simply remain as part of the problem.

So tell me, what do you think we should do when we run out of solar power?

We are certainly living in extraordinary times. A Golden Age of technological advancement, in a world in almost perpetual foment, torment and inequality.

And, a world of contradictions - moves to introduce 10 year jail terms for match fixing, while automobile homicide may attract a term of 10-16 months; Anders Behring Breivik strutting on the world stage, when what he deserves is a quick bullet to the head; people upset that Muammar Gaddafi wasn't brought to trial, yet happy to put Saddam Hussein through a tortuous incarceration and trial before hanging him anyway; Democratic (or 'Liberal') Capitalism or 'Globalisation' reaping unconscionable fortunes for a few, while so many millions live in desperate poverty and worse.

There is no easy solution, and short of Australia becoming a genuine Asian/Global nation by mass open immigration, Oz can only play a relatively small part in addressing the sort of world reforms needed to achieve a genuinely stable, open and equitable world society.

I doubt those European nations Alan quotes received all those refugees by choice - given Europe's open borders policy - and I doubt they are all happy about the civil discontent which has arisen in so many parts in consequence.

It appears that China is paying 'Chinese' wages to locals employed in their mines and developments in Africa and elsewhere - but Oz is unlikely to consider different rates for 'refugee intake' or 'itinerant' workers. We at least have different standards. But, given our homeless, our unemployed (though comparatively low) and our underprivileged (including many of our indigenous people), some discretion is surely warranted.

It would seem that only a complete overhaul of the 'globalisation' system will be capable of resolving the world's refugee situation. The UNHCR's big brother, the UN, has a job of work to do, and a lot more than 47 million are waiting (and dying).

<< How can anyone justify the intake of the refugees when in Australia we have in excess of 200,000 homeless people due to very limited affordable housing. >>

A good question gypsy.

Because we SHOULD be putting a decent effort into refugee issues on the world stage.

But it would need to be done as part of a holistic national plan for the future, in which we strive for a sustainable society with net zero immigration, or else, yes, it would not make sense with reference to neglected Australian citizens.

If we had net zero immigration, which would be in the order of ~35 000 per year, of which perhaps up to ~27 000 were refugees, we’d be able to improve the lives of those 200 000 homeless people and make real improvements to all manner of services, infrastructure and other quality-of-life issues for the whole population.

If we continue to be grossly burdened with a ~300 000 annual immigration intake, we’ve got no chance, because we’ll need to keep pouring most of our public money into building ever more infrastructure and services for the ever-growing population, and thus have scant little to put into making real improvements for the existing population.

The refugees brought to this country are the most needy. Only those that really need resettlement should be brought here. But yes, we should also be mindful of the need for good assimilation, and for them to not add to cultural or religious tensions.

Australia’s refugee and aid efforts have other positive spinoffs – good international relations, trade advantages, setting a good example for the world….

So as I see it, with the right sort of future planning, it would all fit together very well: a sustainable society, steadily improving quality of life factors and a considerably increased humanitarian effort.

All this chattering about asylum seekers and the 'expert panel's solution' is rubbish. We all know Abbott when elected as P.M. will re-implement John Howards Pacific Solution and the boats will stop.

With the legislation today Labor is on a hiding to nothing.

If the boats stop it's because of Abbott's Policy ... if they don't it's because Labor hasn't implemented all of Abbotts Policy.

In the meantime we are going to see what happens to Governments who do not do the homourable thing. A government that cannot govern should honourably resign

We are about to witness why, historically, governments and PM's who cannot implement their policies simply resign.

That's what Gillard and Labor should do. Since they won't ... they will be crucified ... whenever they do or don't do anything. Worst of all it simply highlights Gillards ability to brazenly lie to the electors. And she's 'over it'... what a joke.

Look at what Abbott said yesterday.

'It's a measure of this government that it celebrates a win in the Federal Court.'

What an insult. The absolute pits.

Could anybody imagine anybody saying that about Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke, Keating or Howard, their Attorneys General or their governments?

A return to Rudd ... only makes things worse.

There seems to be a fairly high representation in this discussion of those who believe Australia accepting people escaping from intolerable situations - war, religious persecution, famine, political purges, other - is intrinsically undesirable.

Is this the case?

Just looking at the waves of refugees Australia has accepted over the centuries, since the first boat people arrived in 1788, it would appear all refugee groups have made a highly positive contribution to Australia's rich multi-cultural community:

Irish from from famines and English from poverty and overcrowding in the 1700s and 1800s; Lutherans from Prussia in the 1830s; Hungarians, Italians and Poles escaping religious and political persecution in the 1800s; Russian, Greek, Bulgarian, Armenian, Assyrian and Jewish refugees fleeing purges in the early 1900s; Jews from Nazi Germany in the 1930s; refugees from Greece, Italy and other European nations after WWII and then waves of refugees in the 1960s and 70s from Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

All beneficial experiences for Australia, as well as reasonably helpful for the families involved?

No?

Alan, we still accept refugees, as we have done in the past.

There is a difference however, between doing our share and being flooded with them. More and more, does not mean better and better.

Hi Alan,

It's the numbers we are more concerned about. During all those previous mass immigrations I don't think I can identify the mass of refugees or displaced peoples totalling anywhere near 49 million.

You know I've asked Marilyn Shephard on many occassions, 'at what point are there too many refugees for Australia to accommodate?'

I'd respectfully ask you the same and then I'd further ask what measures you'd put in place once that point is reached?

Thanks, Yabby, Keith and others.

The main point of the original article was to suggest that Australia is simply not being "flooded" despite what some sections of the media and some political parties want you to believe.

Don't let them suck you in.

Australia had received only 23,434 refugees under UNHCR mandate by 2011. This is puny compared with other rich countries. And nowhere near as generous as many poor countries. Australia ranks 47th in the world.

In the same period France received 210,207 refugees – almost nine times Australia's number – in one fourteenth the land mass. Germany accepted 571,685 on terrain smaller than that of France.

Even Austria which fits into Australia 91 times received more than twice Australia's intake at 47,073. Switzerland, half the size of Austria again, accepted 50,416.

None of the above nations enjoys Australia's robust economy. None has the benefit of Australia's low population density and uninterrupted economic growth since 1992.

So Australia is only receiving a small trickle compared with other nations with a similar economic system and comprarable populations - but who have vastly less arable land and significantly less wealth.

This is courtesy your very impressive moat.

On the basis of what Australia has achieved in earlier periods and its resources now, probably between 20,000 and 40,000 each year should be manageable.

Australia last year resettled fewer refugees than did Liberia, Kenya, Tunisia, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Yemen and Israel.

Are you proud of that ..?

Then, if we can only get our rich Western allies to stop invading poor Muslim countries and meddling in other peoples' affairs, the world will soon have a far less serious global problem.

Hang on Alan, Australia has been taking 13'000 a year, that has been the annual quota. That is now being increased to 20'000 a year.

So we are doing our share. If you want to go on the European guilt
trip, so go and then land up with slums full and racial tensions,
just like them.
Once again, Australia cannot save the world. Address the problem at its core, as I have mentioned before, rather than trying to plaster it over with feelings of empathy. All very sweet, but hardly rational.

Don't blame me if Pashtuns hate Hazaras and Hazaras hate Pashtuns.
If Sunnis hate Shias and Shias hate Sunnis. This tribalism has been around for a long time. If the Taliban are invading Afghanistan, go and see Pakistan.

Fact is that your UN 51 Convention is so full of holes, you would
not have a clue as to who is an economic migrant and who is a genuine refugee. Easy fixed, take the 20'000 from refugee camps, not just the rich ones, as we have been doing. What about the Burmese who don't have 2c? etc.

What France has done or Britain has done is hardly a guide as to what we should be doing. Go and ask the French wether their slums full of Algerians are such a good thing

Australia should do what is good for Australia, not writers, not journalists, not the "International community".

The fact is that many(?), most(?), some(?) of the immigrants have contributed to their plight by their lifestyle, their culture, and most of all, their religion. If they accept a faith that doesn't believe in equality, freedom of speech and freedom of conscience, then why the hell should they be allowed to come to Australia? They come and they bring their ideology and problems with them. Any country that takes in Muslims is asking for trouble - just look at France, England, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Greece and so on.

Yes, there are good Muslims, but collectively they are a minus. Most will not integrate and they will not accept or respect the 'other' (perhaps it has something to do with the fact that the Quran says we infidels are lower than animals). Look at how Muslims treat nonmuslims where they dominate if your have doubts. Try to find a Muslim that will be honest about the hate and violence in the Quran, the evil deeds of Mohammad or the way they treat others. Good luck but don't hold your breath while you search.

Immigrants, yes, Muslims, no.

We are so politically correct and blind to the nature of what is called "multiculturalism" that we ignore simple, obvious facts. Compassion is fine, but use your head, too.

<< Just looking at the waves of refugees Australia has accepted over the centuries… it would appear all refugee groups have made a highly positive contribution to Australia's rich multi-cultural community>>

Abso-bloodly-lutely !

And that’s just the half of it.

Alan neglected to mention that some of our most influential community leaders came to us that way.
This guy, for example: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2005/11/08/1131407637648.html
He’s famous for the line: "According to my religion, jihad is a part of my religion and what you have to understand is that anyone who fights for the sake of Allah, when he dies, the first drop of blood that comes from him out all his sin will be forgiven."

As did some of our most dynamic enterprising entrepreneurs. I’m told on good authority that this guy: http://tinyurl.com/884npkm
owns a chain of retail outlets in Kuala Lumpur (and since settling in OZ has acquired two or three houses!)

And some of our most principled citizens --freedom fighters even.
“dozens of young men to return to their homeland to join Islamic jihadis against the Ethiopian-backed Somali forces…”
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/somalia-jihad-drive-probed/story-e6frg6of-1111115033793

And some of our most promising authors –like this guy: http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3565591.htm
I’m told his writings are in much demand in some of the western suburbs of Sydney. He wrote inspiring words like this: “small groups can cause havoc among Americans": "Pursuing Americans and Jews is not an impossible task. Killing them with a single shot, a stab or a pack of a popular mix or with an iron rod is not a difficult deed. Neither is burning their properties with a Molotov bottle. Small groups with small available means can cause horror to American and Jew alike."

And don’t think for one minute that only OZ has accrued such benefits no, no, no.
The leaders of the Madrid bombing were (wait for it) former refugees to Spain.
Many of those behind the innumerable plots in the UK derive from its humanitarian intake.
As were a godly number of those who sought to right the wrong done by the Danish cartoons.

All beneficial experiences for Australia… oui, oui, oui, monsieur

Alan Austin can plead as much as he wants. It aint going to happen, Australia will not open its doors as an easy route from the middle east to a better life.

There are a number of reasons why, and any fair dinkum journalist or scholar would point these out rather than look at the world with a magical view that somehow we can all just accept everyone and we can ignor any differences without our right to adopt some reasonable control over numbers.

As i have said before, biased left wingers are great to remind us of what we miss out on or neglect, but fortunately policy will be mostly driven by pragmatic MPs answerable to the electorate.

Unlike Alan, i think we do a pretty good job as a nation through a reasonable per capita refugee intake, which Alan ingores because it does not fit his biased argument (surprise, surprise); and our sosiety and economy which is now more open to foreign goods which have given poorer nations a better go.

This rubbish that Australia is going great can only come from someone who does not a have a clue about how many Australians are now struggling or a likley to do in the future in these times of high housing unaffordability and cutbacks to services.

@ Alan Austin,

<<Australia last year resettled fewer refugees than did Liberia, Kenya, Tunisia, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Yemen and Israel.
Are you proud of that ..?>>

This is an example of the gross distortion that is often exercised by refugee advocates & their fellow travelers.They conflate temporary residency with “resettlement”.

Most of the countries Alan cites to shame us have not the slightest intention of ever granting their “refugees” full citizenship.
(And for that matter most of those “refugees” do not meet the UN conventions definition of refugee --often fleeing famine or seeking their fortune elsewhere rather than escaping persecution)

Take one of his shining examples Yemen.It’s true that many foreigners walk/boat/fly/swim to Yemen. But most are seeking to use it only as *transit point* to more affluent locations like Europe or Saudi Arabia --see the below article: ttp://www.irinnews.org/Report/94279/ETHIOPIA-Cautionary-migration-tales-are-no-deterrent

And most are not real refugees –as one comments:

“I have no future in Ethiopia,” he said. “I’ve seen Europe on TV, and it’s better.

“I have no future in Ethiopia,” he said. “I’ve seen Europe on TV, and it’s better.

“I have no future in Ethiopia,” he said. “I’ve seen Europe on TV, and it’s better.

You call for fairness Alan – but, how about a bit of FAIRdinkum HONESTY, eh?

Good morning all. Interesting discussion. Thank you.

To allay the fears several respondents here seem to have, perhaps it might be helpful to refer to just the one specific recent experience of asylum seekers – that of the Vietnamese in the 1970s.

Australia received more aslum seekers in leaky boats then than now as a proportion of population. The same objections were raised back then:

They are different from us, they won’t integrate.
Look at the mess they have made of their own country.
We don’t want their heathen religion here.
There will be communists, criminals and subversives among them.
They will bring their sectarian hatred and violence here.
Australia is full. We are already taking more than our fair share.
We haven’t got the space or resources to accommodate anyone else.
They are just jumping the migration queue and wanting to live in a rich country.
Too many Australians are doing it tough, etc. etc.

As things turned out, Vietnamese Australians have made good citizens overall, despite the inevitable small number of criminals and rogues. And now the West has decided to engage contructively with the Vietnamese Government instead of waging war, we are allies and trading partners, and they are at peace.

Australia now has a much healthier economic profile than those nations which refused to accept Vietnamese refugees back then, such as Japan. In fact, Australia now has the best economic profile of any country in the world.

My parents tell me it was almost exactly the same with those evil foreign Italians in the 1940s: with their strange language, history of war and bloodshed, hostile religion (to Protestantism), evil-smelling foods and dysfunctional political system at home. And there were even more of them arriving proportionally.

And don't get my grandparents started about those Irish!

So we really don’t have to be so pessimistic and fearful, do we?

Alan, you are of course ignoring the central argument, raised by the recent report that everyone is focussing on. Why should boat people be treated better and have preferance over people in refugee camps?

The Australian economy is doing well right now, but things are far
from certain. We have a mining boom which is not far from crashing.
The merino sheep collapsed long ago. Just watch what happens when mineral prices start to crash, they are trending down right now and projects are being cancelled. Go and ask Spain, Italy, Greece etc,
if the flood of migrants from Africa is a problem. Why should we be so silly as to copy them?

Australia took its share of Vietnamese. Its now taking its share from Islamic countries. But given that some posters think that we should be taking millions, I think its all feelgood and they really have not thought things through. Given that we give refugees a life of relative
luxury, each one of them demands huge investment in infrastructure,
hospitals, schools, power and all the rest. As it is, the city of Perth for instance, relies on desalination plants for water and given the history of droughts in the East, they have had to build plants to be ready for the same thing. Ip people want to live in the desert, they can do that in Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan, no need to come here.

Muslim migrants integrate better in small numbers, rather than large numbers, where they are large enough to obtain political influence.
Name me one Islamic country where people have free speech like we do.
So comparing Islam and Buddhism is hardly a valid comparison.

Alan,

So we agree, Australia cannot take all 42 million.

It seems our debate is now sensible. It's a debate about capacity.

OK I accept 40,000 pa.

Ok now tell me what you intend to do with illegal asylum seeker number 40,001?

Hello again.

A few brief responses:

@Ludwig: “Australia in its support of the US could be viewed as being part of an international effort to try and bring unrest in the Middle East to an end ...”

Ludwig, remember the ‘shock and awe’ bombings in 2003 which killed so many thousand Iraqis? Have you tried to consider these events from their viewpoint?

@Geoff of Perth: "If you think we can modify the current western model to accommodate those outside the mainstream theatre, please give me a model that proves it can be done ...”

Geoff, many researchers look at Australia, New Zealand and Canada as models. All three have accepted waves of migrants over the centuries - as now. All are quite sustainable.

@Yabby: “But moving say 2 million Hazaras from Afghanistan to Australia ... is not going to solve anything, except to create a Hazarastan in Australia ...”

Yabby, no-one is suggesting Australia take 2 million Hazaras. Just a fair share. Total percentage of Australia’s Mulsims who are of Afghan origin is minuscule.

@Kactuz: “Yes, there are good Muslims, but collectively they are a minus. Most will not integrate and they will not accept or respect the 'other'...”

Kactuz, have you pondered the number of times Christian countries – USA, Britain, Australia and others – have invaded Muslim nations since WWII in the quest for resources or political dominance? And how many Christian countries Muslim nations have invaded in that time? Is it possible there are reasons for Muslim hostility?

@SPQR: You show links to four Muslims of dubious character.

A quick google search yields about 44 names of Moslems making highly positive contributions in Australia. These include writers, actors, sportsmen, business and community leaders and MPs.

So, I’ll see your four and raise you 40.

And finally, @SPQR again: “This is an example of the gross distortion that is often exercised by refugee advocates ... They conflate temporary residency with resettlement.”

No. The figures quoted re Liberia, Kenya, Tunisia and the others were specifically for ‘Refugees recognised and resettled’ as shown here:

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/n/media/120618-Global-Trends.pdf

Cheers, AA

*Yabby, no-one is suggesting Australia take 2 million Hazaras. Just a fair share*

Not quite correct Alan. Marylin on here thinks we should consider
ourselves fortunate that millions have not yet arrived from places like Iran. Neither you, the Greens or Marylin, are prepared to say
what your plans would be if they tried to all arrive here. Australians won't accept unlimited numbers, no matter what the UN says.

I note that you refuse to answer Iamjullianutter's question.

I think you will find that most Iraqis are actually quite pleased that the Americans got rid of Saddam. Shite-Sunni conflict has existed in Iraq from long before they did so. Tribalism is part of the culture there

When did White people volunteer to be the world's Plan B?
It's quite clear that Sarah Hansen Young and her ilk empathise with non White Refugees and feel apathy if not antipathy towards their own ethnic group, so to White Australians such as myself it's quite clear that at least in terms of identity SHY is not White in any meaningful sense of the word.
If that statement makes sense to anyone reading it you're probably White and you may at this point wonder why it is that people who are not identifiably White and who have no loyalty to you and your children are in a position to make decisions regarding the ethnic makeup of YOUR community?
MS Hansen Young looks like your sister or your daughter but she doesn't have the same software running in her head, she's clearly not one of us.

Hi Yabby. Fair questions.

“Why should boat people be treated better and have preference over people in refugee camps?”

They don’t. The overwhelming majority are fleeing torture or death. Queue jumpers are weeded out and sent home.

If anything, Australia has been too strict on this. Several refugees sent home have been killed.

“The Australian economy is doing well right now, but things are far from certain. We have a mining boom which is not far from crashing. The merino sheep collapsed long ago.”

Yes and no, Yabby. We buy premium Australian lamb here in France. Italian suit makers pay squillions for Merino wool. So still profitable. It's just that you have other industries even more profitable.

Australia's total exports soared 10.2% in 2011 to $313.3 billion — first time exports exceeded $300 billion in any year. Australia ended the 2011-12 year with $9 million trade surplus for June and $5.8 billion for the year. Just extraordinary!

Yabby, Australia is not “being so silly as to copy Spain, Italy, Greece etc.” They are desperately trying to copy you.

“Name me one Islamic country where people have free speech like we do.”

Indonesia. World’s largest Muslim country. Has free speech like Australia. That is, free as long as you do not offend the Government or its powerful allies, as Australian citizen Julian Assange has done.

In response to imajulianutter: “Ok now tell me what you intend to do with illegal asylum seeker number 40,001?”

If he is a genuine asylum seeker he will be sent to whichever country has not filled its quota. If not, he goes home. If all quotas are full, he will stay in detention until they are revised. If quotas are not revised, he will likely commit suicide as have so many other asylum seekers under Australia’s jurisdiction recently.

Finally, Yabby, yes, “most Iraqis are actually quite pleased that the Americans got rid of Saddam.”

True. But not happy with the manner of his demise. Most Australians wanted to see the back of John Howard. But no-one wanted him killed after a mock show trial, did they?

Allan

Thank you for answering.

Yes, we have made a mess of things. The West has no business in any Muslim country. They will not become democratic; they will not respect human rights. Note, however, the Western military interventions to save Muslims. Do we get credit for those? No, of course not.

As to Muslims being outstanding citizens. Yes, it is possible --- except that Muslims will say one thing, do one thing around infidels, and another among themselves. They are afraid to challenge Islam. They will not criticize anything about Islam or their dear prophet, no matter how vile. They problem is that people like you make excuses for them and let them get away with it -- this means they will not change.

Until I see Muslims -- where they dominate, that is -- treating others as they want to be treated, I see no reason to believe they have any goodwill towards non-Muslims or the courage to stand up to their radicals (or to address the moderates what refuse to talk about the the hate and violence in the Quran and hadith).

Or you could do this, just ask a Muslim friend to condemn Mohammad's attacks on his peaceful neighbors or the words of Allah that tell Muslims that non-Muslims are lower than animals, and to be attacked and subdued. Read Quran 9:111 and remember that Muslims believe this to be a divine mandate from Allah.

Maybe you hadn't guessed but I don't like Islam. Muslims have threatened me and my family for saying things they don't like, but which are absolutely true and from their own sources. The problem is Muslims, all Muslims, are incapable of critically reflecting on their religion. It may be fear or culture but it means that they will not change nor will they live in peace with us. The so-called good Muslims will have to choose and most will put Islam above our rights and freedoms. Sad.

Anyway, thank you for your observation and reply. Just remember this conversation in the future. I told you so.

AA said "So we really don’t have to be so pessimistic and fearful, do we?"

Well Alan, since you are or haved lived in France, could you enlighten us about the extent of debate about no-go areas in France where I have read even emergency services are reluctant to go.

Yes, we should take a fair share of refugees,but lwet's not dream on about the lack of things to worry about.

Bob Birrell, one of Australia's experts on refugee and immigration matters, considers gettign rid of Aust's adherence to Refugee Convention to deal better with related issues.

http://theconversation.edu.au/why-australia-should-abandon-the-refugee-convention-4003

Alan, of course boat people are treated better. No waiting around in refugee camps for a decade, straight through they go, taking away places from those who can't afford the boat trip, like the Burmese.
Women and children, largely miss out. Most boat people are young males whose families can afford to pay for their trip.

Yes, Australia finally had a trade surplus! Wow! Iron ore was at 180$ and coal at a record, just then. Meantime iron ore is now 110$, coal has dropped back enough for them to start closing some mines. But of course the real figure to take note of is the current account.
Ours used to run at -6% for years, a bit like Greece today. Right now its -3%, worse than France. Those making money, ie with profitable current accounts, include Singapore, Saudi Arabia, Germany, Holland, etc. We keep borrowing more to pay the current account deficit, but its mainly private borrowing, not Govt borrowing. ( until Mr Rudd came along, anyhow)

You are out of date on the world industry. Merino numbers are down by two thirds as farmers could not make a living and left the industry.
The wool in that suit might mean 10$ to the grower, most spinning now happens in China, not Italy. We can't even sell our lamb to the EU, bar a few thousand tonnes a year, so that 4.50$ a kg, paid to the grower, is hardly a premium. Yet those pesky EU people expect us to buy their motor vehicles and all the rest. Open up your trade barriers, or don't try to preach to us.

No free speech in Indonesia I am afraid. Try and say what you truly think of religion and you'll be strung up or locked up.

If Mr Howard had gassed thousands of Australians and treated them like Saddam treated his people, no doubt the Aussies would have strung him up too.

@Alan,

1) <<No. The figures quoted re Liberia, Kenya, Tunisia and the others were specifically for ‘Refugees recognised and resettled’ >>

And that is perhaps why you got it wrong!

The Refugee Council’s document does not talk about those countries *RESETTLING* refugees, it hedges and fudges and uses weasel phrases like:
i) ““some of the world’s poorest nations...welcoming people seeking asylum”
ii) “the largest numbers were received by nations”
iii) “Number of refugees hosted”
iv) “Number of refugees protected”

Then it leaves it up to naïve journos & advocates who don’t check their facts to draw the (wrong) conclusions.

The words “hosted: “received” and “protected” are not the same as RESETTLED, with full & permanent citizenship rights!
And “welcoming” in this context means they are allowed across the border but confined to a border camp or nearby slum.
(Strangely enough to the Refugee Council that is seen as “welcoming”, but our detention centres which by comparison are five star hotels are portrayed as cruel--go figure!)

Rather than rote-copy the press release of the Refugee Council –whose sole role in life is to propagandize for bigger and bigger refugee intakes.You would have been much better informed had you looked-up our own DIAC sources: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/pdf/A_New_Life_3.pdf

DIAC would have told you (without the fudging & weasel words) that “ Australia is one of only 10 countries which RESETTLE refugees and people in humanitarian need each year”.And funnily enough, none of your exemplary countries appear on that list of 10!

2) <<@SPQR: You show links to four Muslims of dubious character. A quick google search yields about 44 names of Moslems making highly positive contributions in Australia>>

Do the maths again Alan.

This link alone talks of *DOZENS* of young jihadis returning to fight for al-Shabaab ( how did you ever get it down to “four”?)
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/somalia-jihad-drive-probed/story-e6frg6of-1111115033793

And for every capt Emad that we detect (I use the word detect since nothing is done to boot them out!) you can rest assured there'll be hundreds of others who we never know about.

PS: It wasn't about catching *Muslims* out --only conmen & their helpers.

Good morning,

Thanks again.

@Kactuz, I'm guessing you're too young to remember the Catholic/Protestant sectarian bitterness that once divided Australia.

Just change Moslem for Catholic, Islam for the Vatican, infidel for non-Catholic and Prophet for the Pope:

“As to Catholics being outstanding citizens. Yes, it's possible – except Catholics will say one thing around non-Catholics, and another among themselves. They are afraid to challenge the Vatican. They will not criticize anything about the Vatican or their dear Pope, no matter how vile … This means they will not change.”

Identical sentiments throughout history, Kactuz, whenever dearly-held ideologies have clashed. Clashes nearly always occur when one ideology seeks to denigrate or destroy the other. Usually characterised by both sides exaggerating the other’s evils.

Seems endemic in human nature. But history also shows it’s possible to find respectful dialogue – and then forge constructive collaboration, despite significant differences and a history of conflict.

So, Kactuz, how did you go with the earlier questions:

“Kactuz, have you pondered the number of times Christian countries – USA, Britain, Australia and others – have invaded Muslim nations since WWII in the quest for oil, other resources or political dominance? And how many Christian countries Muslim nations have invaded in that time? Are there valid reasons for what appears to be Muslim hostility?”

@Chris Lewis: Yes, there are no-go areas in France. But not many. Some factors contributing go beyond the current subject. But two factors discussed here seem relevant:

France has accepted far more refugees than it can comfortably manage partly because many other countries that can accept more have refused to do so.

France has about one sixth the arable land of Australia but three times the population. France has much higher unemployment, lower economic growth, less favourable terms of trade, higher debt and much less successful economic management overall.

The French are entitled to ponder why they have resettled nine times more refugeees than Australia has. No?

The second factor to have been confirmed here, Chris, is that hatred, prejudice and racism still flourish.

Back later with further responses.

Cheers, AA.

Because the french are idiots, doesn't mean we should be.

Bonjour,

@Yabby: We’re moving into intriguing but unrelated areas, so will pass on responding. We agree on many – sheep industry, trade surplus, private borrowing and trade barriers. May pursue these elsewhere.

On current matters, refugees languishing in camps are suffering. Certainly. But not facing torture or execution or both. Important distinction.

Boat people then face enormous risks from criminal smugglers, treacherous oceans and pirates. Those found not genuine are sent home.

@SPQR: You showed links naming four Muslims of dubious character.

I then referred to links naming 44 outstanding Moslems. Including writers Randa Abdel-Fattah and Irfan Yusuf, broadcaster Waleed Aly, actor Osamah Sami, AFL footballer Bachar Houli, Test cricketer Usman Khawaja, rugby’s Hazem El-Masri, Australia Post CEO Ahmed Fahour, Crazy John the mobile phone man and Ed Husic MP.

Can name others. So, I said I would see your four and raise you 40.

You wrote: “Do the maths again Alan. This link alone [to an article in The Australian, December 2007] talks of *DOZENS* of young jihadis returning to fight for al-Shabaab. How did you ever get it down to “four”?

Well, SPQR, I got the number four from your linked articles which named only four suspects.

Now, if you want to refer to *DOZENS* of Muslims – not named – who allegedly returned to activism in Somalia, then I will refer to 400,000-plus Australian Muslims who love their kids, work at their jobs, pay taxes, boost the economy with production and spending, stand for local government and mostly vote Labor (first generation) or Liberal (second generation).

So I will see your *DOZENS* and raise you 400,000.

A couple of tips, SPQR:

One of your sources was The Australian. Never believe anything you read in any Murdoch publication, except sports results and arts reviews. Almost certainly untrue or seriously distorted.

One source was from 2005, another from 2007. The whole point of the current reforms is to put those bad old days behind us.

And finally, SPQR, I’m going with the figures from the Refugee Council. They have nothing to gain by fudging them, do they?

Cheers, AA

@Alan,

<< You showed links naming four Muslims of dubious character>>

No Alan, I showed links to numerous *individuals* who had made a mockery of what is often touted as our *strict vetting processes*.
And who showed (continue to show) no love for our liberal democratic values.

<< So I will see your *DOZENS* and raise you 400,000.>>

Again, Alan, I need to remind you this is not about Muslims – despite your best efforts to derail the thread – it's about shonks.

<< One of your sources was The Australian. Never believe anything you read in any Murdoch publication…Almost certainly untrue or seriously distorted.>>

Maybe, but funnily enough, here's the same story on the ABC!
“A religious scholar claims young Somali-Australians, who've gone to Somalia to fight with the terrorist group al-Shebaab, have returned and are living in Australia.”
http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2009/s2693680.htm

<<One source was from 2005, another from 2007. The whole point of the current reforms is to put those bad old days behind us>>
LOL
I asked you once before if Alan Austin was “a nom de plume of Julia Gillard?” At the time you assure me it wasn’t but that last quip was straight out of the *REAL JULIA* handbook. Mindful as I (as we all are) that Julia is economical with the truth, I ask again …are you sure you are not Julia Gillard?

It will take a lot more than the (re)opening of Club Med branches on Nauru and Manus to stop the shonks.

<<the Refugee Council...have nothing to gain by fudging them, do they?>>

The Refugee Council document was crafted in such as way as to make OZ appear to be deficient (and it certainly took you in, ay? : “Australia last year resettled fewer refugees than did Liberia, Kenya, Tunisia, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Yemen and Israel.Are you proud of that .. ?)

“They have nothing to gain”—They actually have millions & millions & millions of things to gain!
Because that is the extend of their govt funding each year.
No constant inflow of “asylum seekers”: No funding , and ergo, No more Refugee Council!

*Those found not genuine are sent home.*

Oh come on Alan, you arn't really that gullible, are you? I remind you what Mexicans risk, in trying to get to the USA, to live
"the good life". We have had journalists travel to Sri Lanka, Afghanistan, North Africa and they interview people. They openly admit that the word is out, they want a better life, so send their kids on boats to Aus, or try to get across to Italy, Spain, then on to France. The UN Convention is 60 years old and so full of holes,
its laughable. Now you are complaining that France has too many,
because you have been such suckers.

Europe really has gotten itself into this mess itself, now you want us to do the same. Look at the mess in Holland, Denmark, England,
France, Spain, Greece, etc.

If my life was threatened, I would be quite happy just to escape and
get over some border. Not go window shopping for a rich country, half way around the world. I would be happy in any camp, (I've lived in army camps), not try and burn it down. I would be happy to be alive, if my life was threatened, not list demands and complain.

Australia would be foolish to make the same mistakes as you lot did.

*Iran ranks first worldwide in terms of having the largest number of road accidents with 38,000 deaths and injuries per year. Other sources place the total number of fatalities at 100,000 over the past 6 years or 20,000 per year on average (2008).*

Alan, the above snip is from Wickipedia. In other words, a person is far more likely to get killed by risking travelling on Iran's roads, then by having their life threatened by anyone. But if 3 Iranians
were shot somewhere, you would point it out to me, as a major drama.

Hello again SPQR, Yabby, Chris, Mr Minister and others,

Not sure if there are questions there. If you have any, I’m happy to attempt answers, as you may have observed.

Meanwhile, one for you all:

Envisage an amazing holiday for you and your spouse / lover and your two favourite nephews, both of whom coincidentally are medical students. You are in this idyllic spot on the remote coast of Western Australia having decided to immerse yourselves totally in the wilderness – no phones, no internet, no two-way radio, no contact with the rest of civilisation.

Seriously remote.

On an early morning stroll along the deserted beach you find a boat about to be washed ashore, holding an extended family of nine starving, dehydrated Muslims, three of whom are injured, two critically, and two others deceased. Four of the nine are children.

One of the children in broken English explains they were attacked in their home country for their religious beliefs and were fleeing for their lives. They plead with you to take them to your house – there is nowhere else for 200 miles in any direction – and to provide medical care, food and water.

You, your partner and your strapping young nephews have the strength to haul in the boat and carry the injured to safety, and then bury the dead. You also have the strength to push the boat back beyond the surf where they will all perish. Or you could just run away – which would obviously leave the family to perish on the beach.

Everyone is looking to you. Your call. What is your decision, and why?

But here’s the catch: Australia has already accepted its quota of refugees for this year.

So what do you do?

Well Alan, I would certainly not provide them and all their extended families, cushy benefits forever, at the expense of my family.

I would give them temporary help and temporary protection, and return them to the part of the world where they originated from. Unless you of course are claiming that those parts are full and overpopulated
already. In that case, you seriously need to address my earlier
point, of some serious family planning in those countries.

After reading through all these posts all that I can say is that Alan's arguments seem trivial, bias and most of all have no real basis in reality. Alan you need to get yourself educated.

Alan,

Of course I would offer assistance. But your little scenario is quite unrealistic.

This is how it is much, much more likely to play out:

Imagine you’re a Christmas Island Detention Centre employee on his lunch break and you’ve gone for a stroll on the other side of the Island. Whilst walking along the beach you see a boat approach. When it gets to within 50 metres of the shore, a young man on the boat (there are about 100 of them all told, all young men) calls out to you: “Hoy mate, can you tell me how to get to Christmas Island dock (he holds up a new apple iphone) my batteries have gone flat and can’t call the naval taxi service number which the Ozzie bleedin hearts have emailed me”. You tell him it’s just around that promontory. And boat motors-off. But as you saunter back up the beach you hear a series of splashes. Fearing someone has fallen over board you run back to the water and wade out towards the boat just in time to see a hodge-podge of papers float by . You pluck some of them up.They are a combination of IDs showing the owners as coming from India, Iran & Yemen, receipts that show they overnighted at the Jakarta Hilton, and petty cash vouchers signed by the chief Ayatollah of Iran.

You make your way back to work arriving just in time to see boats passenger disembark. You’re somewhat nonplus since the formerly composed passengers are now crying and blubbering and telling horror stories (whilst they line up to make their free calls home).

Shortly afterwards, they are all “found to be genuine refugees” and transferred to the mainland. And you lose track of them till one day while holidaying on the Gold Coast you meet up with them again as they are coming our of the Gold Coast Hilton.You greet them and ask how they are fairing. They tell you how good it is to finally live in free country. Since settling they have all sponsored their families over. He introduces you to his aunt, his uncle, his mother & father, his grandmother & grandfather & his eldest brother (another six brothers are still luxuriating in the spar upstairs) and his eldest brother's four wives. A little envious you ask how he can afford to stay in such expensive accommodation. He smiles as says: “no probs,Oz is a free country, I have government certificate that gives me free hotel,free housing, free transport, free medical, free university and even free TV & Xbox. You say your goodbyes and book into the YMCA.

After a week your recreation leave and money have both expired. And you need to leave, but the asylum seekers are still enjoying the sights. At Coolangatta airport you have a life changing moment. You phone through your resignation to the detention centre,withdraw what meager saving you have left and book a flight to Broome. There you buy a Urdu phrase book, steal and old Indonesian fishing boat (awaiting destruction for illegally fishing ) , and sail south to Christmas Island.

You just forgot one thing, SPQR. The present Govt, encouraged by the
Greens, are booking all this up on the Govt credit card, for future
generations to pay off. Perhaps Alan wants us to land up with a semi bankrupt Govt, just like France.

Alan,
in respomse to your question

'Australia has already accepted its quota of refugees for this year.

So what do you do?'

I'd do mostly what you suggested earlier

'If he is a genuine asylum seeker he will be sent to whichever country has not filled its quota. If not, he goes home. If all quotas are full, he will stay in detention until they are revised. If quotas are not revised, he will likely commit suicide as have so many other asylum seekers under Australia’s jurisdiction recently.'

Of course I'd have a proviso or two, simi-lar to those of the UNHCR, before resettlement, he'd be able to supply appropriate paperwork or proof of origins for identification.

And in my detention centers, unlike yours, I'd make sure services were available to ensure no further attempts at self harm, either deliberate or as a result of unintended comsequence, like perishing at sea in a rickety boat, were allowed to occur.

Your pleadings are becoming circular Alan. Are you sure you're not masquerading as Julia?

'

Interesting responses. Thank you.

Now, just one more scenario: same as above, with one change.

This time it’s a family of white farmers from Zimbabwe who had been attacked by thugs who stole their farms with the support of the local police, and indirectly the government. The boat about to be washed ashore holds nine starving, dehydrated Anglos, three of whom are injured, two critically, and two others deceased. Four of the nine are children.

They explain in perfect English that they are the MacIntyre family, fifth generation farmers in Africa, have fled for their lives, have no identifying papers at all and no chance of going home as long as the regime lasts. They plead for medical care, food, water and a burial for the deceased.

As with the earlier scenario, Australia has already accepted its annual refugees quota.

What do you do?

>>He smiles as says: “no probs,Oz is a free country, I have government certificate that gives me free hotel,free housing, free transport, free medical, free university and even free TV & Xbox.<<

No he doesn't. If he's been granted refugee status he gets permanent residency and a lot of the same rights as full citizens. They can't vote in federal elections but they do get Medicare and if they want it the joy of queuing up in Centrelink and putting up with all their crap in order to get benefits: benefits which are the same as everybody else's. There's a lot of Centrelink-dependent housos around where I live and they're not living the highlife on Newstart. I reckon most refugees will be smart enough to realize that it is actually easier to just get a job - even if it's an unpleasant one - then put up with all of Centrelink's crap and so they will become contributing members of the economy. Those who aren't that smart will join our own home-grown useless dole bludgers.

Cheers,

Tony

@Alan,

<< “ a family of white farmers from Zimbabwe who had been attacked by thugs who stole their farms with the support of the local police, and indirectly the government. The boat about to be washed ashore holds nine starving, dehydrated Anglos, three of whom are injured, two critically, and two others deceased. Four of the nine are children… have fled for their lives, have no identifying papers at all and no chance of going home…>>

Now here’s a scenario for you Alan.

If they were the aforementioned *WHITE* farmers.

Would SBS include them as some of its *victims* in its atrociously warped beat-ups “Go Back To Where You Can From”?
Would our professional refugee advocates picket the detention centre on their behalf ?
Would David Manne launch a high court challenge ( ala his Malaysian Solution challenge) on their behalf ?
Would Sarah Hanson-Young break down and cry in the senate about their plight?
Would Alan Austin be writing a piece on OLO bemoaning their plight?

The answer to all of the above: NOT ON YOUR NELLIE!

Bon soir,

Thanks again for the further input. Just some brief responses before calling it un jour here.

@Yabby: Agree totally re family planning and population control. Excellent point. We may get to explore this further one day.

Not sure, though, that any welfare recipients in Australia – home-grown or imported – get “cushy benefits forever”. I doubt it. But these things are all relative, I suppose.

@Ozzie: Always happy to be educated. Please post any data on this topic you think is lacking. Thanks, Ozzie.

@SPQR: Yes, Tony Lavis is right. Your Gold Coast scenario is a fair way from reality. SPQR, you haven’t been reading The Daily Telegraph again, have you? The Australian?

But you are correct in your last post, SPQR. None of those bleading-hearts you list would for one second bemoan the fate of white Zimbabwean farmers with no passports, no identification and no money. Why not? Because Australia does not lock up English-speaking whites in off-shore detention – as Malcolm Fraser noted last week.

Cheers, AA

@Alan,

<<Why not? Because Australia does not lock up English-speaking whites in off-shore detention>>

NUMBERS, Alan, NUMBERS.
The total number of whites in Zimbabwe was 46,743 (in 2002).
At the current rate of invasion (since Julia usurped the throne) that would be less than two years inflow!
Ergo, if our detention centre staff were reliant on the inflow of whites from Zimbabwe to keep their centres open, within two years they’d be lining up at centrelink looking for unemployment benefits –and you can guarantee they would not be getting any free white goods, widescreed TV or Xbox as part of their package!


<< Your Gold Coast scenario is a fair way from reality. SPQR,…>>
Still my scenario would be much closer to reality for someone living on our west coast that the little soufflé you served up.

<<as Malcolm Fraser noted last week.>>
Come, now, Alan, fair is fair.
If I can’t cite the Murdoch press you can’t cite Malcolm Fraser!
(and come to think of it, the Murdoch press is a darn side more objective & edifying)

Alan

I'd do mostly what you suggested earlier

'If he is a genuine asylum seeker he will be sent to whichever country has not filled its quota. If not, he goes home. If all quotas are full, he will stay in detention until they are revised. If quotas are not revised, he will likely commit suicide as have so many other asylum seekers under Australia’s jurisdiction recently.'

Of course I'd have a proviso or two, simi-lar to those of the UNHCR, before resettlement, he'd be able to supply appropriate paperwork or proof of origins for identification.

And in my detention centers, unlike yours, I'd make sure services were available to ensure no further attempts at self harm, either deliberate or as a result of unintended comsequence, like perishing at sea in a rickety boat, were allowed to occur.

However your example isn't realistic and exhibits dishonesty and a lack of decency.

At the height of the land theft and attendant murders in Zimbabwe many white farmers from Zimbabwe settled in Australia, after applying for visas, not by clogging (Abusing) the refugee system They used their own resourses to immigrate and settle here. And contrary to your unrealistic senario none ever turned up here illegally on boats.

I think you owe those farmers from Zimbabwe, who acted really decently, an apology.

*Because Australia does not lock up English-speaking whites in off-shore detention – as Malcolm Fraser noted last week*

I was not aware that they had been arriving by their thousands, on leaky boats with no papers. It is quite reasonable to lock up anyone, if we don't have a clue as to who they are.

I was not aware either, that white Zimbabweans or South Africans
having been given asylum as refugees here. The Zimbabweans who have come here, AFAIK are either on 457 visas, some kind of skilled visas or have enough money to be considered as business migrants. They
patiently wait their turn. This is despite the fact that its been
made clear to whites in Africa, that its now the black man's continent, so they had better leave. Something like 600 white farmers have in fact been murdered in South Africa. Its now the world's murder and rape capital.

I'd run out of posts earlier, so could not respond then.

Hello again,

It's alright, Keith. Calm down. No-one needs to apologise to anyone. My scenarios were entirely hypothetical. Both of them.

Now pondering how the discussion may have developed had we started with the white Zimbabwean scenario first and the Afghanis one second.

Oh well, that's hypothetical too.

Incidentally, a thought-provoking opinion is expressed here today:
http://newmatilda.com/2012/08/20/accepting-refugees-good-business

*Don’t use the millions of displaced people in the world as an excuse for not trying this out. Most of them are not looking to come here.*

Alan, I loved the above bit of Eva's article. Is Eva for instance
aware, how many million Mexicans have risked their lives and how many millions have smuggled their way into the USA, for nothing more than a better economic life?

Why does she think that billions living in Asia are so different to Mexicans?

Some of these academics, really do live in dreamland.

Fact is that the UN 51 Convention is 60 years out of date and has become a great way for economic migrants to find an excuse to slip into the first world, under the present laws. Either the UN should
overhaul the Convention or Australia should pull out under the present terms and name its own terms. Even Tony Blair acknowledged
that it was a major issue, but he also knew that the bleeding hearts would outshout him politically, so never had the testicles to attempt to make changes.

@Alan,

<< Incidentally, a thought-provoking opinion is expressed here today:
http://newmatilda.com/2012/08/20/accepting-refugees-good-business >>

LOL

The only thought it provokes is that Eva Cox has NOT given it much thought!

Us raising out intake will NOT stop the flow.
As Yabby has indicated it’s positively Pollayannish

And this suggestion: “ Fund 8 extra UNHRC staff to validate claims in each of the above countries (i.e. Malaysia & Indonesia)”
Shows just how out of touch Eva is.

Are we to take it that if the UNHCR says no, to the “asylum seeker” He/she will know the game is up and simply go home?

Many of our boat arrivees now are people who have *FAILED* the UNHRC test in Indonesia.

What did they do?

They simple hopped a boat to Christmas Island knowing full well that in every likelihood they would be rubber stamped “found to be genuine”!

Here’s an even better thought-out suggestion that any Eva makes:

"Why does Australia not close the border?," said Esmat Adine, a 24 year old Afghan. "Everyone is coming because the border is open. Everyone is going there and they are being accepted."If Australia does no want asylum seekers to come to Australia [by boat], it is a better way to close all the borders and then no-one will come."
: http://www.smh.com.au/world/survivors-tell-why-the-boats-keep-coming-20111219-1p1td.html#ixzz1scfUPWuR

I see everyone using the example of the white Zimbabwean farmers. Really!

How many of them have been granted refugee status? I don't know of any. Most came on a migration visa based on skills, and weren't granted any special consideration.

Austin, I read an earlier commment and state don't play the racist card with me.

As a child of southern Europeans myself, i am quite aware of the various arguments for and against different peoples, and the taunts and so on.

But unlike you, i think Australia has and still does quite a good job by world standards. That is if we take accoutn of all the policies that involve foreigners, trade, immigration and so on.

As someone who has little emphathy for racism, on the logical basis that all people are equal, I am more conceerned with the balance of the refugee program.

Yes, we should take refugees (a limited number), but we should take them from all areas of the world, not just from were most asylum seekers are coming from to Australia.

For reasons that have nothing to do with race, and more about culture, i do not want large groups of people from one or a few troubled naitons congregating in certain suburbs. In this time when Australia is losing more and more unskilled work jobs, what would be the point of merely sewing the seeds for future problems. We have small scale problems compared to Europe and we should be sensible enough to keept it that way.

Our refugee and immigration program should very much take account of our economic (and cultural) needs. That does not mean we do not take people frpom all areas and cultures. It just means we are careful with numbers.

That is why i find Bob Birrell more interesting that ten of you or ten Eva Cox's. People like Bob Birrell, not willing to rest on do-gooder emotions, have the rare capacity to put the various policy pieces together.

Alan, what surprises me is that you seemingly are not learning much from the disaster in France, which has been created by importing too many people from limited countries.

The AFR had an interesting article in its Aug18-19 edition, entitled "When Two Frances Go to War. Cities surrounded by ghettos full of unemployed North Africans. Regular riots. No go zones, where
cars, taxis, doctors and bus drivers are afraid to go. etc.

Australia has to be very careful to not land up with the same mess that now exists in France, in a few decades. Anyhow, if you can somehow get hold of the article, its worth a read.

Mind you, the French could hardly be called compassionate. Right now they are even turfing out and sending home, a few thousand gypsies.

Alan,
Why can't you just accept your mistake, withdraw the appalling slur, and move on.

Your senario might have been hypothetical but that doesn't negate the slur it contained.

Being stubborn, ducking and weaving, and refusing to accept your responsibility is exactly what that wretched Gillard does.

Why don't you blame the 'whites' for their situation. Gillard would do that too.

Your second hypothetical just could never have happened. Just totally unrealistic. Academicland stuff.

Hello again. I’m back. Thanks for the questions.

@Yabby: Interesting re Asians and Mexicans. Pretty much agree. Again a bit off topic.

Not sure “the disaster in France” is as disastrous as you think. When were you here last, Yabby?

It’s certainly not true this was "created by importing too many people from limited countries”. Many factors interact. That’s not a major one really.

“Regular riots”, Yabby? There was one in Amiens last week. Fairly complex causes. When was the one before?

@SPQR: You seem not to be distinguishing between migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, irregular maritime arrivals and illegal immigrants. Would this be right, SPQR? These are all distinct categories in law and in morality. No?

If you could check recent posts and clarify your categories, then please make a point or pose a question again.

@Chris Lewis: “Australia has and still does quite a good job by world standards. That is if we take accoutn of all the policies that involve foreigners, trade, immigration and so on.”

Yes, perhaps, Chris. But it depends what “and so on” includes, doesn’t it? Do we include population density, mass of unused arable land, unemployment levels, job participation rates, demand for labour from abroad, overall economic wellbeing, past success with integration, other?

Different variables considered yield different assessments of generosity.

Re: “i do not want large groups of people from one or a few troubled naitons congregating in certain suburbs.”

Well, asylum seekers are from troubled nations by definition, pretty much. Where they are settled and in what numbers is a challenge for the receiving country. The Houston report favours a return of something like the Community Refugee Support Scheme abandoned in the late 1990s. Used to work pretty well.

@imajulianutter: You can relax, Keith. No, really! There was no “appalling slur”. There wasn’t a “moderately offensive slur” or even a “happy slur”.

Look, tell you what, Keith: If you know any Zimbabwean or Afghani settlers hyperventillating over this, put them in touch here and I will explain “Hypothetical Situation” carefully to them. I will try not to use big words.

Cheers, AA

*When were you here last, Yabby?*

Ah Alan, but I am there every day. Courtesy of CNN, BBC, Reuters,
The Economist and every other news network. Just because you live
in some quaint, rich part of France, does not mean that its like that
in other parts.

Civil unrest is constant in France, due to these racial tensions, but from memory, they were rioting in Grenoble, burning cars etc, in
2010. Then in 2005 they burned thousands of cars, a couple of thousands rioters arrested, a state of emergency as sections of Paris
burned. Marie Le Penn would not be so popular, if all was sweet.

*Interesting re Asians and Mexicans. Pretty much agree. Again a bit off topic*

Oh its not off topic at all. Economic refugees claiming asylum under an out of date Convention, is part of the core of this debate.Those
hordes from Africa, seeking a better life in Europe, are very much
part of your present problems in Spain, Greece, Italy and elsewhere.

@Alan,

<< You seem not to be distinguishing between migrants, refugees, asylum seekers, irregular maritime arrivals and illegal immigrants. Would this be right, SPQR? These are all distinct categories in law and in morality. No?>>

For your edification:

The correct term for anyone who bribes and bullies and barges their way to our shores is “illegal immigrant”.

“Irregular maritime arrivals” is merely a weasel term concocted by the soft left in an endeavour to cover their own naivety & impotence.

“Asylum seek(ing)” is the pretext that the illegals use to gain entry (if we were allowing in red heads they would all be dying their hair red!)

“Refugees” is the official term for what they become after they are rubber stamped “found to genuine” -- though nothing is ever really verified or determined. And being classified a “refugee” means they have made it. They can now phone home and tell all their relos: "come-on down, its easy-peasy, catch the next boat".

Greetings again,

@Yabby: Good to see some valid sources of info there. The BBC and the Economist are generally sound. But perhaps “and every other news network” may be the source of the problem.

There are many ‘news’ organisations that exist precisely to keep readers/listeners/viewers in a state of ignorance. You have probably seen the research showing how Fox News in the US makes people stupid. And there are various articles here on OLO critiquing Murdoch’s so-called ‘news’ reporting in Australia.

Here is an interesting piece run earlier today showing how the media in Australia serves to keep people misinformed on this very topic:

http://newmatilda.com/2012/08/22/distortions-and-lies-about-refugees

I certainly agree, Yabby, that where one lives can be a bit of a blind. Which is why travel is important. I’m just back from an overnight in Spain. Now there’s a place with problems …

Agree also things are not so sweet in France. This is true. We are beginning the process of recovery after ten years of government which failed in many areas.

@SPQR: Yes, pretty sure now that this is where we fundamentally disagree – on the categories of refugee arrivals.

Also, I expect, on what we understand to be the fate of those who are not genuine.

Do you know – off the top of your head, SPQR – without googling, how many illegal immigrants were sent back home from Australia in 2011-12?

Was it:
(a) 10
(b) 117
(c) 392, or
(d) more than 10,000?

Cheers, AA

Hehe Alan, so you tell me to read accurate information, and then
give me an article by an author of the refugee action coalition!

I prefer unbiased information, not dogma.

Yes Fox is biased, I don't watch it. But clearly some of your
sources are biased too. Fact is that with the internet, there are many
sources and anyone is free to explore them to form an opinion.

In my late teens I actually spent about 18 months living in France,
so I know a fair bit about the place. But today, with two satelite
dishes and a myriad of channels from all over the place, I can
choose to be very well informed indeed, better than many who
travel and only see a tiny part of a country or continent.

But given your sources of information, you have of course revealed
just how biased your own opinion is. Not too much objectivity there,
I am afraid.

@Alan,

Why do I get the impression that you’ve found one of those refugee activists websites with the catechism-like question and answer pages --put there to provide ready made responses for those who can’t think for themselves -- and are now slowly working you’re way through the prefabbed excuses trying to justify your preconceived position?

Just look at some of the clangers you’ve tried on:
1) “Australia last year *resettled* fewer refugees than did Liberia, Kenya, Tunisia, Ethiopia, South Sudan, Yemen and Israel.Are you proud of that .. ?)
And when that was debunked ( i.e. it was pointed out you had been had by a clever piece of propaganda ) -- you tried this on

2) Gee whiz, look at all the exemplary citizens who has come to us as refugees.
And when it was pointed out there was an equal or greater number of shonks –you moved on to

3) What if a poor family got ship wrecked on the coast –or, if they were a white farming family from Zimbabwe – would you not throw open you arms, NO?
And when it was pointed out to you that we are much more likely to have washed up a ship load of streetwise young men in Calvin Kliens and Nikes with iphones -- YES! You retreated to

4) What about this piece from Eva Cox (which I found on (rabid leftwing website) New Matilda : don’t go quoting from the Murdoch press SPQR , but hey, I can quote from New Matilda or Malcolm!)

@Alan,

And some of the lines you have come out with still have me ROFLAO

“the Refugee Council… have nothing to gain by fudging them, do they?””
Well, yes, they do...only the matter of tens of million$ govt funding each year!

I figure you must be on about excuse number 203 by now… only another 2003 to go!

Yes, Alan, we do send “asylum seekers” home.
But only those dumb enough to tell the wrong story

<<“Australia gives citizenship if you have a good story… They will know you are lying, but as long as you say the same thing whatever they ask you, you will be fine.">>
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/18/afghanistan-people-smugglers-taliban-europe

The fourth reality is that Australia can and should accept far more refugees than it does at present: Whilst this kind of insensitive overpopulation has permanently destroyed the Murray Darling food bowl.

And the fifth reality is that Australia can and should export far more coal than it does at present: Whilst bigger carbon taxes are applied at home to prove Australia is environmentally responsible.

The 100th reality is Australia is a shizophrenics and LIARS paradise.

Our politicians and captains of industry and commerce are the best at it. They're motivated by greed which laughs at truth and treats its electors like animals.

They call this nation building and that's:

The sixth reality .. its a taxpayer funded JOKE!

Hello again Yabby,

Don't mean to sound like a broken record, but you are doing it again. I raised the matter of falsification of data - and you respond with bias. They are not the same categories, are they, Yabby?

Were you wagging it the day your logic teacher taught category errors at school? If so, you are forgiven. I understand.

Hi again SPQR,

Excellent questions.

But before I respond to them, just two quick questions for you. Follow-up questions really:

1. How many tens of millions of dollars of government funding does the Refugee Council receive, to the nearest ten million?

2. And how many illegal immigrants were sent back home from Australia in 2011-12?

Was it:
(a) 10
(b) 117
(c) 392, or
(d) more than 10,000?

Back tomorrow ...

Cheers, AA

@Alan,

<< Excellent questions.. But before I respond to them, just two quick questions for you. Follow-up questions really:>>

LOL

Err, Alan, you have *already* responded!
It wasn’t a case of you missing the questions.
It was rather a case that your responses were pure piffle.

And now you have retreated to game playing:

I’m thinking of a number…
Now it’s between 10 an 10,000…
and if you can’t guess the number I am thinking of, you lose!

It sounds very much like you are building up to tell me that the majority of illegals actually arrive here by plane and are from affluent countries (its usually about excuse no. 204 on the list!)

Sorry, Alan, I have got time to play a numbers game.
How about you tell us the relevance of it.

*I raised the matter of falsification of data - and you respond with bias. They are not the same categories, are they, Yabby?*

Alan, you got me to read an article by a guy who seemed to be whining
that everybody was getting it wrong, other than them. Press of
every colour, politicians the lot. All wrong. Come on. SPQR
posted an article from the Guardian, hardly the Murdoch press,
about every falsified document that money can buy, being freely
available in Kabul. You just ignored it.

There is plenty of data out there Alan, but I try and read less
biased sources, than your refugee action coalition.

Alan,

look I apologise. I truely forgot.

There is no point criticising the actions of your ilk.

You are of course never wrong.

Again I apologise for forgetting your omnipotence and all knowing nature.

However, nil refugees were sent home from Australia in 2011 - 2012, but nor were any people arriving on the SIEVs who were found not to be genuine refugees.

You must have known that Alan.

Hello again,

Well, as we wind things up the decision is confirmed that Australia will lift its refugee intake to 20,000 a year for the next few years. Still low by international standards, but an improvement.

Answers to the earlier questions are:

Australia’s immigration department assisted or enforced the departure of 10,785 people found not to be genuine refugees in 2011-12. This is up on 10,175 the year before. Next year's number should be higher still.

So claims that Australia is soft, has open borders, that arrivals are rubber stamped as genuine, that boat people who have failed the UNHRC test elsewhere are accepted, that people can bribe or bully their way in are false.

Yes, I know these assertions are repeated constantly in Australia’s newspapers and on talk radio. But they are still false.

The Refugee Council of Australia does not receive “tens of million $ govt funding each year” as also falsely claimed. Total income from all sources last year was $515,256.

Only $140,000 or 27% was funding from federal government with another 5% in grants from state and local government.

Cheers, AA

@Alan,

I see you are still befuddled.

<<Australia will lift its refugee intake to 20,000… an improvement.>>

Raising the intake to 20,000 will not stop the flow.
It’s akin to passing out free alcohol to alcoholics in the hope it will sate their appetite.

<<“Still low by international standards”>>

And I see you are still conflating the words “hosting” “receives” & “resettles” (as the Refugee Council would like you/us to).
They are NOT the synonyms. Australia is ONE OF ONLY TEN countries which RESETTLE refugees and people in humanitarian need each year.
And it is high on that list. Once again Alan I refer you to the DIAC link –which you apparently did not see fit to enlighten yourself with the last time: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/pdf/A_New_Life_3.pdf

@Alan (continued)

<<Australia’s immigration department assisted or enforced the departure of 10,785 people found not to be genuine refugees in 2011-12…. So claims that Australia is soft, has open borders,… are false. >>

No it does not.
The majority of those expelled were arrivees by jet.
They were people who had overstayed their visas.

On the other hand, the vast majority of those who boated in WITHOUT visas are still here. And even -–on those rare occasions when they can be shown to be NOT genuine refugees-- we often cannot return them -see here:
“Australia is scrambling to deal with 1500 Iranians who risk languishing for years in immigration detention because they cannot be deported. More than 40 per cent of asylum seekers who arrived by boat in the past year were Iranians and, of the ones assessed, about two-thirds have had their application for refugee status rejected. Because Iran will not allow Australia to send the Iranians home, Immigration Minister Chris Bowen faces the choice of locking them up indefinitely, releasing them into the community or attempting to reach agreement to transport them to a third country.”
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/more-than-a-thousand-iranians-risk-languishing-for-years-in-detention/story-e6freuy9-1226180501361

<< The Refugee Council ... receive(s) …Only $140,000 or 27% was funding from federal government with another 5% in grants from state and local government.>>

WRONG!

I’ll take your “$140,000”, Alan, and raise it to $391,371.

See the below from their annual report (FYE30 June 2010)

DIAC contracts 192,705
Grants 155,805

I also have a question mark over this entry
Consultancies 44,279

(this in only the DIRECT benefits they own up to!)

What ever way you look at it. The vast bulk of Refugee Councils revenue is derived from government sources. And very much relaint on teh constant inflow of "refugees"

Which is why it seek to conflate terms like "hosting” “receives” & “resettles”.
To sell/misrepresent the case for more "refugees" -- but no one is buying it, other than the gullible

Hi again SPQR,

No, not befuddled at all. My information here is pretty accurate. Bemused a tad, perhaps.

Just to respond briefly to your information:

1. “Raising the intake to 20,000 will not stop the flow.” Of course not. We don’t want it to. The overwhelming majority of IMAs are genuine asylum seekers – that is, they are fleeing for their lives. They are welcome in Australia – and here in France and in all civilised, humane, wealthy, developed nations.

Any that turn up in Australia who are ineligible are sent home as soon as practicable. Simple as that. But most are found to be eligible.

If you want to “stop the flow” then you have to somehow stop the US and its allies waging war on other countries – or at least on poor, developing countries. And you have to provide workable queuing systems in refugee-producing regions.

2. The DIAC link you provide shows figures “published January 2004”. Things have changed since then.

3. Your second link is to an article in The Daily Telegraph. As we have discussed previously, SP, there is no wisdom or truth to be found in any Murdoch publication, is there?

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=12286

4. DIAC contracts are not the same as government grants. The former are payments for specific services. The latter are handouts for general operational costs.

5. You are looking at earlier figures again re RCOA funding. Latest figures are here: http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/a/inc.php

6. Pretty sure these show the council does not receive “tens of million $ govt funding each year” - which is the main correction required.

Cheers, SP,

AA

@Alan,

<< “Raising the intake to 20,000 will not stop the flow.” Of course not. We don’t want it to>>
“We” of course being your little circle –not the majority of Australians – but then, whenever did your mob care what the prols wanted, eh?

<< The overwhelming majority of IMAs are genuine asylum seekers – that is, they are fleeing for their lives>>
So why on earth would they—shortly after securing their meal ticket in Oz –return to their much feared country of origin?

<< Any that turn up in Australia who are ineligible are sent home as soon as practicable. Simple as that. But most are found to be eligible>>
Total baloney –so how do you explain away the Irians?

<<If you want to “stop the flow” then you have to somehow stop the US and its allies waging war on other countries – or at least on poor, developing countries.>>
Did you by any chance attend the same school as Poirot?

<< The DIAC link you provide shows figures “published January 2004”. Things have changed since then>
Not at all. Chris Bowen was quoting the same less than a month ago on ABC Radio National –or will you discount his testimony too?

<< Your second link is to an article in The Daily Telegraph. As we have discussed previously, SP, there is no wisdom or truth to be found in any Murdoch publication, is there?>>
For all it faults the Murdoch press is a darn side more credible than the sources you parrot.

<< DIAC contracts are not the same as government grants. The former are payments for specific services>>
Yes, services that are dependent on the constant inflow of “refugees

*If you want to “stop the flow” then you have to somehow stop the US and its allies waging war on other countries*

Err hang on there, Alan. People are not fleeing from the Americans.
They were fleeing from the Taliban and from Saddam, long before
the Americans became involved in these countries. Given that Pakistan is behind
the Taliban and without Pakistan they would hardly exist,
perhaps you should talk to them about taking more refugees, unless
of course you claim that the country is full and urgently needs
family planning.

One reason why we would have more attempts from those countries,
is that America moved in with big bucks and those billions made
many families in both countries, quite wealthy. So now they can
afford people smugglers, with their greenbacks in their pockets.
Unlike the Burmese, who generally don't have two cents.

I don't know of too many Australians who agree with you, that everyone
is welcome. People believe that we are doing our share, even if a
limited few are on some leftie guilt trip. They are a marginal but
noisy group, that is all. So you are hardly speaking for Australia,
but for yourself.

Alan

you are as dishonest as Gillard.

'Australia’s immigration department assisted or enforced the departure of 10,785 people found not to be genuine refugees in 2011-12. This is up on 10,175 the year before. Next year's number should be higher still.'

Why don't you reference the source of this information?

Not one of those assisted or enforced deportations was off an SIEV. Not one boat person has been deported.

All the deportees have been arrivals with visas ... who applied for asylum or who overstayed.

Mate you ought to be bloody ashamed of yourself for peddling lies.

Alan,

Your arguments are a lost cause.

How do you feel about Gillard and Bowen adopting part of Tony Abbott's Pacific Solution?

How long do you think it will be before they have to implement Tony's Policies of TPV's and turning back the boats?

Hi again all.

Yabby, why do you say “perhaps you should talk to Pakistan about taking more refugees”? Do you know how many refugees Pakistan has received?

According to the UNHCR, Pakistan continues to host approximately 1.7 million refugees. This is the greatest number in any country by far - almost double the number taken by the second-ranked country, which is Iran.

This makes France’s effort here look pretty feeble – even though we accept nearly ten times the number Australia does (on one fourteenth of the land mass with already three times your population, and with a much weaker economy. But wait, I am repeating myself …)

Details re Pakistan here, Yabby:

http://www.unhcr.org/pages/49e487016.html

Hey, Keith, I just realised something. You and SPQR haven’t read the Houston Report, have you?

Pretty much all your questions are answered there. That’s where you will find the correct number of returnees in all categories. Appendix Seven:

http://expertpanelonasylumseekers.dpmc.gov.au/sites/default/files/report/attachment_7_returns_removals.pdf

The specific numbers of boat people returned from Australia is set out in Table 24: Number of IMA removals from 1 July 2008 to 3 August 2012.

Am I bloody ashamed of myself for peddling lies? No, not really, Keith. But I might be a tad embarrassed if I was discussing the contents of a report I hadn’t read.

How do I feel about Gillard and Bowen adopting part of Tony Abbott's Pacific Solution? Well, for a start, it isn’t Tony’s initiative, is it? Goes back a way before him. Personally, against it. But this discussion isn’t about my personal opinion.

May I urge you to read the Houston Report. Two benefits:

First, you will understand Australia’s actual situation.

Second, you will see how far from the truth is the ‘information’ you are constantly fed by Australia’s media.

Cheers, AA

Is the vacuous Tony capable of having an initiative?

*According to the UNHCR, Pakistan continues to host approximately 1.7 million refugees*

Indeed they do and so they should. Its gone down tremendously, as
millions more had fled the Taliban and have now returned to Pakistan.

Many of those in Pakistan were born there, work and live there.
They still arn't given permanent residency, but only temporary
protection. If we do the same here, you would be howling in protest.

Those in refugee camps in Pakistan are looked after by the UNHCR,
ready to return to Afghanistan when it can take them. Only the
Pakistani Govt makes it difficult, with their support for the Taliban.

If Pakistan stopped supporting the Taliban, the rest could go home
too. So its up to Pakistan really.

Given that Pakistan's popultion has been increasing at 3 million
a year for yonks, overpopulation is clearly not an issue.

Neither it seems, is it in France. They stick them in slums surrounding cities and are hardly running out of land to do so,
or they would not need to dump their agricultural products on
world markets due to overproduction.

But there is of course still lots of spare land in Afghanistan, so
why not just send them back there? They are hardly full.

Spot-on, Yabby,

Alan still can't seem to get his head around the fact that there is a massive difference between "hosting" and "resettling"!

Can the untrustworthy and incompetent Juliar manage a simple task like emulating the pacific solution. Her woeful past record indicates not.

'Am I bloody ashamed of myself for peddling lies? No, not really, Keith...'

ha honesty at last.