What a load of old cobblers. We don't do our share for refugees. Resettlement of just 6,000 people and the grudging acceptance of a few thousand more asylum seekers out of the 43 million displaced people is nothing at all.

And stop claiming we have the highest resettlement next to Canada, resettlement is nothing to do with the rights of refugees to seek asylum under the convention and it has no legal underpinning at all.

It's a hoax that cretins pay $360 million a year for.

Because SIGNATORY nations are only responsible for people who apply in those nations, not for those who apply in other nations.

What we are doing here is effectively paying hundreds of millions to sanction actual queue jumping of refugees who have protection already in an attempt to appease ourselves.

Go to the DIAC website and read for yourselves if you don't believe that.

This is from the UNHCR report into Australia

Third, the confusion, and often wilful conflation, of Australia’s commitment to offer asylum to those eligible under the 1951 Refugee Convention with a separate, and discretionary, programme of resettling 6,000 UNHCR-referred refugees from different part of the world each year.
This has led many to assume, wrongly, hat ‘proper’ refugees arrive through the resettlement programme and ‘improper’ refugees arrive by boat, with the latter accused of violating Australia’s borders and hospitality by jumping the (mythical) queue of more deserving people awaiting
resettlement. This false characterisation has led, in our view, to a disappointing loss of support for the institution of asylum at a time, during the Refugee Convention’s 60th anniversary year, when we are asking States to reaffirm the primacy of this important human rights instrument.

You bet Marilyn,

There are some extraordinary figures being bandied about here.

"Like the poor white trash in the south after the defeat of the Confederacy in the American Civil War, the eco-fascists think of immigrants (and refugees) as freed black slaves – they consider them with envy and contempt.

Bourke's article is a thinly disguised attempt to curry favour with the Greens. Refugees are OK. Immigrants are not.

What he is really saying is that he wants to stop people having kids whether they live here or whether they arrive by boat, helicopter or aeroplane.

Marylin,
How much say do the indigenous get when it comes to letting more people unto their lands ?
Do they prefer refugees or legal immigrants or none ?
I have never got an answer to this question.

Aborigines all over the country have been welcoming refugees to country since time began.

It was only aborigines who bucked the trend against our government not allowing Jews into this country and as many aborigines married
Afghan camel drivers in the 19th century they have a strong connection to the Afghan community and have taken them in as brothers and sisters since 2001.

Marylin,
I meant nowadays. What's their view on more & more foreigners encroaching.