The UNHCR, my dear SPQR, is an organisation dedicated to solving the world's poverty problem by the simple expedient of having the entire third world immigrate into European descended countries.

Divergence: "Why not plot the absolute numbers as well as or instead of the difference from the previous year?" Good question. When you do a statistical analysis, you test a hypothesis. In my case, the hypothesis is that changes in refugee numbers trigger changes in boat arrival numbers. Why? A very large fraction of refugees don’t move. They run until they are safe and stop. Contrary to the mythology that the UNHCR is trying to inflate the numbers, they recognise this by not counting as refugees those who stop in a safe haven in their own country (they are called “internally displaced”) and by leaving out Palestinians from the general count, since they mostly were displaced decades ago and aren’t going anywhere. So it seems reasonable to me to take as a starting point that refugees on the whole don’t move unless they have reason to be despondent because a sudden influx indicates the problem is getting worse (visible in their camp by growing queues, pressures on resources, etc.). Likewise, if they see evidence of improvement (shortening queues etc.) they are less likely to seek desperate means to find a new home.

That’s why I would argue for doing stats on the difference over the previous year: the push factor of interest is not how many refugees there are, but how big the recent change has been.

But since you ask, let’s do the stats. If you look at the correlation over the entire period for which I have data 1992-2012, the correlation between total number of refugees and boat arrivals is close to zero and not statistically significant. If you look at short periods where there was rapid change, you do see stronger correlations, but the time periods are too short for statistical significance. So my model explains the data better.

LEGO: I left South Africa of my own accord, and returned of my own accord. Keep trying. I can’t imagine anyone with any sense identifying with your views.

Went back home to mum after you got your Aussie passport and a guaranteed bolt hole to flee to, eh, Phillip?

When South Africa turmnes into another Rhodesia, with yet another crazy black "President for Life" ruining the place, you will be alright, Jack. Last I heard, the black SA President had spent the entire annual British Aid budget to South Africa building a new palace in his home village. He isn't as crazy as the Ivory Coast one who built a replica of the Vatican right in the middle of nowhere, but he's working on it.

But on the subject of White SA and Rhodesian asylum seekers, Phillip, I think that Australia should admit every one who does not have a serious criminal record or an Artz degree. This is because I am a white man myself and I have a sense of empathy to my own people, and I know that the SA and Rhodesian whites would integrate easily and productive citizens. Which is more than I can say about too many third worlders who are arriving uninvited right now.

So I can understand why you would want Australia to be welcoming to asylum seekers. You are probably worried about your friends and rellies who will have nowhere to go when SA implodes. But you would be better supporting us Aussie racists on that score, because we are the only ones who care about you and the white population in SA.

If you take a non racist approach, and claim that the western world should accept anybody as asylum seekers, your friends just might get the door slammed in the faces with everybody else. Because in case you haven't noticed, the entire European world is getting fed up of asylum seekers, and this will be a major election issue in every European country from now on.

Rudd's turnaround is indicative that the ruling caste in every European country is sensing that the peasants are revolting over this issue, and they had better start listening to their own people or they will find themselves looking for another cushy job.

David F,
Your first post needs to be examined. You identify two points which seem to manifest from simplicity.

Your first point, "The governments along with the religious and political entities which are persecuting people" is something you believe needs to stop. Did you deliberately leave out 'race'? Because generally, persecution has three main branches: race, religious and political beliefs - and more often than not, race is intertwined with the other two. So how DO you stop this? Send in the 'worlds police force' for more wars? Sow more resentment and hate into the hearts of the affected populace against the West?

Secondly, "the lack of a place of safety for those who are persecuted" is a crucial element that needs to be solved to you. I'd do well to quote Darwin here: "If the country were open on its borders, new forms would certainly immigrate, and this would also seriously disturb the inhabitants. Let it be remembered how powerful the influence of a single introduced tree or mammal has shown to be."

And then, you impose upon Jay that he seems "obsessed with race and racism". Hmm, might I say you are oblivious in discussing such a thing that has an omnipresent importance when dealing with immigration.

PhilipM

You made this statement on another thread:
<<Asylum seekers are not granted asylum in Australia without hard proof that they are in danger if they return home>>
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15265#263803

Care to back it up?

What <<HARD PROOF>> were you talking about?

Please don't dodge the question again.

Dear Seraphic Lord.

You seem to be in some confusion about the psychology of people on the Left side of politics. The Left have deduced that every conflict in the world is caused by Bad Guy "oppressors" who are always doing nasty things to the Good Guy "oppressed." The concept that both sides are fighting for their own self interest is a concept which is a bit too deep for them.

Thus every human conflict can be solved by a trendy lefty by the simple expedient of identifying who is the 'Oppressor" and who is the "oppressed."

If you have been around long enough you will remember that every trendy lefty once took the side of Israel against the Arabs because it was pretty plain that 2 million Israelis could not oppress 500 million Arabs. But unfortunately for the Israelis, they did something wrong. They kept winning their wars against the Arabs and what was worse, they became an ally of the USA.

Now, according to left wing ideology, winners are always the "oppressors" and losers are always the "oppressed." So, much to the astonishment of normal, sensible people, the entire left intelligentsia switched sides after the 1973 Yom Kipper war and started claiming that it was not the 500 million Arabs who were the problem, it was the 2 million Israelis.

Got it now? You were right to call DavidF's mindset "simplistic", but that is how these characters think. Critical analysis and objective thinking is a bit much for them.