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).