I believe there is something like 21 million refugees in today's world, Australia has around 8 million [?]tax payers. Do you think we should bring in all or most of the 21 million, most of whom are tribal people?
Can't stick them in the centre of our country, no water.Cities are now overflowing anyway,elsewhere there is a shortage of all utilities plus water. We have Aboriginals living in awful conditions,can't put 21 million out there.
Arthur Calwell had more sense in one little finger than our bleeding heart Multiculturists have in their collective brains.
At least he had the sense to look ahead,the bleeding heart brigade never look further than the end of their face.

mickijp, depending on whose figures you believe, we bring in somewhere between 150000 and 300000 migrants a year now.
Maybe 30000 of them are refugees. To argue we aren't capable of taking more refugees is to suggest that we have a greater obligation to allow non-refugee migrants in that ones with a genuine need for assistance. I don't see any issue with doubling our refugee intake, and halving our regular migrant intake. We can certainly afford it economically.

What is our refugee program for? It is a totally useless and discriminatory sop to the United Nations by countries who now wish they had never signed the Convention.

It is discriminatory in that most sufferers of repression, starvation, whatever, remain in their own countries to continue their suffering while only a few with the luck and ability to pull the wool over the UN'S eyes arrive in Australia and similar countries to squat on bus-stop seats, with Uniting-Church provided mobiles pressed to their ears, enquiring about the dole they will be on for the rest of their lives - i.e. until they can get a loan to swan around in a used Holden Statesman at the peril of other motorists.

"Refugeeism" is the greatest con job ever perpetrated on the Western World.

Judging by what we see on our daily news reporting, many countries, particularly in Africa, are engaged in Ethnic Cleansing.
The plight of the poor dispossessed is extremely distressing but no country can take in such huge numbers and yet retain it's own long term identity.We can't, with our small population,it would not take many decades before we would be outnumbered.
Maybe that is the ambition of the Multiculturist, a long term hope .
The UN is toothless, it should be protecting the defenceless against the warlords, all it wants to do is shovel it's responsibilities onto the Western nations.With the willing assistance of the B H Brigade.

Leigh, I'm not even going to bother responding to that in words.

Burmese living conditions:

http://www.ibiblio.org/freeburma/humanrights/khrg/archive/photoreports/97photos/section7/larges/138.jpg

Iraqi living conditions:

http://www.phmovement.org/files/Children-Refugee%20camp%20in%20Heet-%2025th%20June%202006.jpg

Sudanese living conditions:

http://www.state.gov/cms_images/sudan_refugee_600.jpg

Australian living conditions:

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2006/10/27/js28n_pool_wideweb__470x346,0.jpg

http://www.tourism.wa.gov.au/SiteCollectionImages/ChildrenCityBeach.jpg

http://www.scu.edu.au/news/images/children2.jpg

If it makes me a bleeding heart lefty to believe that those children in the first three photos fully deserve to be enjoying the conditions that those in the last three are, then I'm proud to be one. Actually, I think it just makes me a human being. We can't take them all, but we can sure do a lot more than we are now.

Unsurprisingly, my view is much closer to that of wizofaus than to mickijo's or Leigh's, who seem to be exactly the types of misanthrope to whom Kevin Andrews' dog whistles are directed.

While I think there is a case for applying some restrictions on immigration into Australia on environmental grounds, a much higher proportion of those who are admitted should be refugees. Relatively speaking, Australia is a wealthy country that could easily accommodate more people who seek to come here on humanitarian grounds, rather than give preference to economic immigrants as we do now.

Further, the ethnicity, religion or so-called 'race' of refugees should not be any kind of factor in asessing their eligibility. Calwell was an old-school racist ("two wongs don't make a white" etc), and the last thing this country needs is to slide back into the bad old days of the 'White Australia Policy' of which he was an enthusiastic proponent.

GOOD_GRIEF..... they are still coming back.. like the heads that popup at the carnival when you whack one..

WIZOFAUS SAID:

>>If it makes me a bleeding heart lefty to believe that those children in the first three photos fully deserve to be enjoying the conditions that those in the last three are, then I'm proud to be one.<<

If that is your position.. it makes you also.. (dare I say it with CJ Morgan monotoring me for 'personal' attacks) a twit.

You could have avoided the 'twit' allegation very simply. Here's how.

You could have qualified your post VERY responsibly by pointing out:

1/ We can never hope to bring all the 'poor and underprivileged' children to Australia as there are more 'out there' than our WHOLE population.

2/ We do not 'exist' so that poor children can suddenly enjoy our lifestyle...which would evaporate overnight and degenerate into very SIMILAR conditions from which your bleeding heart extricated them.

Thats all.. very simple.. very reasonable.. very truthful. But no,.... you suggested very unambiguously that you believe 'we' (the privileged) should open our door to ALL those enjoying a lesser living standard... and suddenly.. socialist utopia has arrived.. and you.. the Messiah, will be at the head of the grand parade.(or is it the highway to hell)
Wiz... puh-lease think with your independant brain...not with the idiotic propoganda your brain has been generously served from who knows where.

2.....+ 2......= 4 u know... it does.. really.

20 million starving underpriveleged children.. + 'come to Australia'= DISASTER.

Melbourne has now clawed its way back to the grand 39% water and that's where we started last year..... we are NOW on the brink of
calamity. Ok.. so lets take at LEAST another mill or 2 of kids.. and see how long it lasts ?

Mate...you need a good shaking.. *shake_shake_shake*.. did it make any difference?
I just shake my old noggin in disbelief at the crazy thinking of some of you.

At least now, knowing Morgan agrees with you (or is 'closer') it explains his weird thinking on other matters

Actually Boaz, I might suggest it would seem to require one to be something of twit to extrapolate from "these children deserve the same conditions" to "let's bring them all to Australia at once".
I already explicitly stated that a doubling of our refugee intake program would need to be coupled with a halving of the regular migrant intake (which is at least 5 times bigger). So, like CJ, I'm arguing for a lower net migration rate than what we have currently.

As far as water usage goes, we personally have managed to reduce our water usage by half over the last couple of years. Indeed, there are 3 of us living on a medium size block *with* a swimming pool, and yet we use less than the average for 2 people living on a small block.
If we can do it, than everyone can - we could easily get by on far less water than we use now, with no genuine loss in standard of living.

Boazo: "you suggested very unambiguously that you believe 'we' (the privileged) should open our door to ALL those enjoying a lesser living standard"

GOOD_GRIEF - Boazy's totally misinterpreted yet another couple of posts in order to demonstrate the paucity of his Christian compassion towards refugees. Who's suggested that we admit every refugee who wants to come here, without restriction?

If you weren't such a xenophobic "twit" you'd realise that wizofaus and I are both arguing for an overall reduction in net immigration, but also that the refugee proportion of our intake of immigrants is increased. That is, our criteria for accepting immigrants should favour humanitarian factors, rather than perceived economic ones.

Or is that beyond the capacity of your twittering mind to comprehend?

d_Nich... are you writing under TWO names ? Wizofaus was the one arguing as you said "halve the regular intake and double the refugee"

and I do apologise..I only picked up from your last post.. didn't read all of them in this case.

Your first (unread) point does make more sense, which makes me wonder why you came up with the 2nd?

Our refugee intake should not be based on 'poor living conditions' it should always be based on the terms of our signatory status, i.e. the convention itself.. which has nothing to do with either economic opportunity or living conditions.. other than a threat from other people toward their personal safety for limited and specific reasons outlined in the convention.

So..I share you concern for refugees.. and I also absolutely support the Howardian mantra "We...will determine who comes here and the circumstances under which they come" I guess he could have added to that "on criteria of social, cultural, political cohesian and harmony"

To do otherwise would be totally insane.

So..within the constraints of sound and responsible policy, let compassion flow like a beautiful river.

I must agree again with BOAZ_David, who in my opinion has presented the best case for the status quo.

I find that for some reason bleeding hearts are very concerned with empty gestures, which serve no other purpose that to give them a warm inner glow. I know that the reality out there is frightening and depressing, but ignoring it is no answer.

The brutal reality is that the third world (most of which is in the never-to-be-developed-world) is set to double its population over the next 25 years, while that of the first world will stabilise.

This will happen because the only thing that George Bush, the Vatican, the UN, and the muslim world agree on is that NOTHING must be done to limit world population. Countries like China, which have acted to limit growth, are regularly denigrated, even though much of their current improvement in living standards is due to that limitation.

This means that in 2032 we will have a world population of around 10 billion.

There will not be enough food to feed this number.

There will not be enough oil to carry food to the massive cities in the third world.

Most of this increase will go to swell third world cities, which will become enormous stinking slums, run by criminal gangs.

There will be NOTHING we can do then to alter this situation. We could make a symbolic gesture, and admit 85 million refugees, which would reduce our living standard to that of Bangladesh, and as it would equal the annual population increase, would delay the inevitable by 12 months.

There is, however, something we can do now.

If we spend our foreign aid money on education girls in third world countries, this will cut the birth rate, as there is a strong correlation. Countries refusing to accept this would be denied all aid and trade.

As a result of all this I totally endorse Howard's position on refugees, but would still like the normal migrant intake to be reduced, as using current technology, we don't have enough water for many more people.

Yes, BOAZ, dnicholson=wizofaus, thought you had been reaading the "privileged whites" thread.

As far as taking in refugees based purely on 'poor living conditions', well no, but the fact is that they are living in ghastly refugee camp conditions because those are *better* than their original living conditions, where warfare, genocide and famine are the norm.

What values should Australian society be built upon?

Gee, David Holcroft, that's a no brainer. Whatever benefits the Australian people, that's what.

Since the "refugee" program is inimicable to the interests of the Australian people, it should be scapped immediately. The only exception shgould be to the white people suffering under black regimes in Africa. After all, we the white people stabbed our own in the back with our "sanctions" which helped destroy white rule and usher in an age of barbarism in Africa, so we have a moral duty to help our own.

White refugees would be easy to assimilate, and being white would be free of the criminal tendencies and welfare dependencies that some ethnicities are renowned for.

Whilever the coloured races continue to breed like flies than there is nothing that we can do for them other than wait until the traditional and natural forces of starvation, war, and disease thin them out.

The sun gets 10% hotter every 500 million years and we either get off this planet or we burn up. We can no longer waste money that should be spent on scientific research keeping a bunch of people who appear to be genetically incapeable of living in the modern world.

Most of these "refugees" demanded that white people get out of their countries and they got their wish. For these people to now scream that they want to live with us in our countries so that we can continue to fill their begging bowls is not on.

An article that every Australian should read and talk about. Especially without getting into the usual pathetic slagging of others with name calling or angsting about 'multi-culturalism'. This is about refugees and how their numbers fit into our yearly intake of migrants.

Australia is no longer an isolated island far away from the rest of the world. We love the wealth global trade brings. We love being part of the political world stage from hobnobbing with American presidents and hosting important confabs in Sydney-primarily looking at economic benefit.

Having large numbers of people without hope on our planet impacts on us, whether we like it or not. It simply cannot be ignored.

Australia yearly takes in a large number of migrants. It is totally beyond me why we insist on mainly taking on skilled workers thereby depleting nations that are in greatest need for people to build their nation and then whining that countries are not able to get on their feet and costing us lots of money in aid and military intervention/policing/nation building.

We should spend all the money necessary, publicly and privately, on educating and skilling Australians already here and by extension refugees.

We can sell our ability to educate wealthy overseas students, but return to their own country must be mandatory. Studying here in Australia is more often than not used as a stepping stone to gain migration status to Australia.

This has nothing to do with left wing bleeding heart mentality, but with pragmatism. Not much trade or business to be done after a while in a slum. We can pay our overseas aid to our own overseas aid workers, which will make us feel real good and we can crow about how generous we are, but it isn't changing anything is it?

We meddle in overseas politics because we need the trade, we like our economic wealth. At the moment we are mainly acting like slum lords of the past. Thinking the immediate economic benefit will somehow have no consequences for our future, either in regard to national safety or economic prosperity.

Gone are the days when Calwell made me cringe. We did have one of the most successful immigration programs in the world at the time though. " apity it was we ran out of labour" to cut cane look after the sheep and all the other sh#ty jobs needing doing, those were the days.

for British ten quids worth of travel, for honeymoon or holiday just had to cope with it for two years, sometimes that wern't easy. I was glad to see the people of the past immigration on Tele recently, a pommy was chosen to represent dissatisfaction with anything Australian, she played her part well.
That the dissatisfaction shown today should be the same! they want to blow us up or something, scary.
One fellow while wandering Africa with some other kids new only how to cook on an open fire? on coming here he was unable to cook as we do on a stove, sounded like a regular guy, I'd like to meet him I need some tips.
Pity about our immigration minister halting any more of his likes coming here in the future.
fluff4