Immigration Minister Chris Bowen wants to boost Australia’s refugee intake by 50% to 20 000.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/refugee-intake-should-increase-by-50-per-cent-immigration-minister-says/story-fn7x8me2-1226210890764

I support this all the way, on the proviso that onshore asylum seeking be STOPPED, which appears to be Bowen’s intention.

Many times on OLO I have advocated this. I am very pleased that it is now being seriously considered.

I think that humanitarian people who have supported onshore asylum seeking have been seriously misguided and should instead have been pushing for this sort of increase in our formal refugee intake.

I have advocated a larger increase in our refugee intake (~25 000 total), but within a much smaller overall immigration program.

Our immigration intake is FAR too big and needs to be seriously reduced, progressively down to about net zero, within which refugees would make up the largest component.

If we were to do this, we could both uphold a commendable humanitarian program by world standards, with the highest refugee intake per established citizen of any country in the world (according to Chris Bowen) and gear the country towards a stable population and a sustainable society at the same time.

So why wouldn’t we do this??

...Well, we have always been a country full of "desperadoes". Lets live-up to the reputation! Here goes Labor tripping down another trail of soft headed nonsense.

Welcome back Ludwig, we missed you.
I agree, and think Malaysian solution would work.
The 20.000 is not a done deal, but an aspiration.
I can see not reason we should not cast our net wider for refugees/migrants Irish, English, and Americans are being sent home and I disagree with that.

Ludwig,

<<I support this all the way, on the proviso that onshore asylum seeking be STOPPED>>

Labor, has not got a hope in hell of stopping the onshore asylum seeking scam--not now, or in any foreseeable permutation.

What we will see will not be 20,000 off-shores and zero on-shores.
But 20,000 off-shores and the same number (as now), or more, of on-shores.

Dear Ludwig,

Talking about increasing the refugee numbers to $20,000?
What about the 60,000 illegal refugees (presumably by plane)?

@ Lexi who says: "Talking about increasing the refugee numbers to $20,000?" LOL

Actually Lexi,I suspect the number you're thinking of is $12,000.
As in, "Sophisticated people-smuggling syndicates charg[e] clients about $12,000 for a one-way trip from Afghanistan to Australia"

The $20,000 fare includes a weeks cruise through the Spice islands on the Oceanic Viking.