Right, and wrong, GIAO.

>>The article you quote is interesting but very misleading and policially biased<<

The only part that is misleading is the mannner in which I introduced it, in answer to ozzie's "Do we take this many? I haven't seen the figures"

Which of course was not the question that the article was addressing at all.

Because it clearly states that what was actually being measured,was:

"...how many applications for asylum Australia and other countries have received this year"

Applications, GIAO. Not acceptances. Applications.

Mea culpa.

So you see, there is no "political bias" at all in the numbers, just a straight factual reporting from UNHCR statistics.

Which would explain why there are so few countries on the list - you'd hardly expect a long queue of applicants for, say, Somalia. Would you?

The article also points out that actual acceptances differ...

"Cyprus is receiving a large number of applications, but it appears that far fewer are being allowed to stay,"

So we are still in the dark about where we stand on the humanitarian league table.

Sorry to mislead.

If the Global Reserve Banks,IMF ,World Bank,Bank of International Settlements had the power of money creation taken from them,then countries like Sri Lanka could create their own credit and would not bother crossing our shores.

These banking institutions are keeping developing countries in perpetual debt slavery from which they cannot scape.

Education and the power to create your own credit is the secret to prosperity.Hitler did it and made Germany the powerful country in Europe.

We will now be getting a whole series of controversies about what
to do the people on each boat.
Both politicians and it seems the government members seem to be
unaware that the people picked up by the Oceanic Viking are not
covered by the UN Refugee organisation treaty.
They were picked up as a result of a distress call and are covered by
the Safety Of Life At Sea Treaty. As they were in the Indonesian
search and rescue zone they are the responsibility of Indonesia no
matter what the nationality of the ship that picked them up.
From what the Australian Foreign Minister said their rescue was as
a result of a request by Indonesia as the Australian ship was the closest.

So all the song and dance about what Indonesia is to do with them is
non of our business.

RobP
Have a look at "the Australian" today, it turns out Tuckey was correct.

'Obviously, we can't take them all but we will have to take our share. We can't lock them all up and nor can we build a big fence around Australia to keep them out. We can, however, improve the processes by which we process asylum seekers and do far more to address the 'push' factors, certainly in the case of Sri Lankans Tamil asylum seekers.'

CJ when you add your preference for off-shore processing, this is exactly what the vast majority of Australians want. The only point of discussion should be annual humanitarian numbers (our share)and the method to deal with those who don't want to be processed off-shore.

I personally think the Pacific Solution and Temp Protection Visas for those arriving by boat is a far better proposition than the disgraceful pawning off of refugee people into the arms and tender mercies of the Indonesians or to have them floating around in a customs boat with the threat of violent ejection hanging over their heads.

I also personally think numbers of humanitarian immigrants should be as at present but an increase on that, to be determined on a basis of individual sponsership by individuals who guarantee financial and social cost and support, and with these people coming strictly from UN refugee camps.

Good to see you've adopted such a positive expression on the issue.