Immigration Minister Mr Kevin Andrews says some African communities have been slow to integrate with the wider community. (AAP: Alan Porritt)

He says that is one of the reasons the Federal Government decided in August to reduce the intake of African refugees from 70 per cent to 30 per cent over the last two years, in favour of increased numbers from the Middle East and Asia."

The Ethnic Communities Council has slammed the Federal Government's decision to cut the intake of African refugees into Australia, the council's chair Phong Nguyen says deciding to cut the refugees on those grounds is shocking.

I guess there are at least two questions I would like to ask before we descend into an arena of hype and over-reaction:

1. What (if any) rights do countries who are signatories to various agreements about refugees have in selecting from the millions of people who have been classified as refugees by the UNHCR?
2. What if any rights do refugees have in selecting the country that they would like to settle in?

Before we all rush in to either support or lambast the minister's statement or indeed the Australian government's position as stated by him I think it would be worthwhile to explore those two questions.

If refugees have "rights" to stipulate the country in which they would like to be settled then let's see where this has been agreed and what those rights are.

If countries have a right to determine the nature and the number of refugees that they welcome into their countries, then let's hear what has been agreed and what those rights are.

Once these matters have been exposed to a public airing THEN I suspect we will be in a position to make informed comment.

Until then we are at risk of making ignorant comments. Would anyone care to provide some information about these matters?

Garpet..responding to "2" in your piece..

Refugeees have NO rights to select the country they want..that..is called COUNTRY SHOPPING.

The ONLY people who should decide who enters any country are those who live there.. through their elected governments.

If our signatory status gets in the way of our selecting people on the grounds of cultural, religious and political compatability then REMOVE OUR SIGNATURE in my view.

Issues such as 'polygamy' and 'doctrinally enshrined child abuse', enshrined religious vilification and racial hatred are huge disqualifiers for anyone who might seek to come here as a refugee.

David
This is a Christian country. We should bring Christians first - simple.
I much prefer healthy well checked Afican christians. In England churches have been taken over by Mosques build from the rich resources of oil fields from Saudi.
They say England will be the first to be diverted to Islam.
Not happy Jan

garpet1

Your questions are straight-forward:

1. What (if any) rights do countries who are signatories to various agreements about refugees have in selecting from the millions of people who have been classified as refugees by the UNHCR?
2. What if any rights do refugees have in selecting the country that they would like to settle in?

The answers are straight-forward too. You'll find them on the official Immigration Department site for example at: http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/pdf/964i.pdf

In brief, UNHCR gives advice which may or may not be accepted by the Australian Government as to need and priorities. It is the Government which decides who comes to this country and the manner in which they come (remember Howard's children overboard and Tampa lies?). There are very strict rules about qualifying for a place.

The exception are the asylum seekers who come or try to come directly to Australia to be deemed to be refugees. These are detained while their status is being determined by Immigration.

Successive Australian Governments have shown time and time again that the concept of rights for refugees is illusory - and especially in the lead-up to an election. Humanitarian generosity and talk of rights always give way to the dog whistle of race and timely campaigns of disinformation. The sad thing is that the whistle is heard loud and clear and picked up on blogs like this (often by those claiming to be Christians - hypocrits!).

The media play their part with screaming headlines and confused reporting. This morning Barry Cassidy on ABC radio confused the Immigration progam (up to 150,000 this year) with the refugee program (13,000 this year as usual).

Refugees' needs are desperately urgent and the colour of their skin should play no part in the Government's decision.

I am ashamed to be associated on the same page with comments from "People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming".

Talk about Un-Australian and un-Christian comments! I am surprised that someone else has not commented that this is likely to create racial hatred.

Australia is a multicultural and multi-ethnic country. Prejudice against those from cultures and religions that are not the same as yours is an anathema to anyone who can think - much less anyone who calls him or herself a Christian!

I'm pretty disgusted by that comment as well PALE.
I hope this is your personal view and not that of the organisation.

To openly state that it should just be christians chosen is discrimination, plain and simple.

As an agnostic who has immigrated to Australia, but now calls himself Australian, I'm somewhat unimpressed. Is it just refugees you'd like to extend this to, or all immigrants?

Even if it's just refugees, I suppose it's their own fault they're being persecuted right?

Maybe it's only the christians that are worth saving huh?