Hi Lexi,

Yes, that's true, but not the point - how many refugees should we be taking each year, out of the forty-million pool ? How many people can our budget support ?

Forgive me, but you may inadvertently be dodging the issue of 'how many ?' It's a legitimate question.

Love,

Joe

Dear Joe (Loudmouth),

I'm not evading the issue. I've told you that the
intake has now been increased by about 7 - 8 thousand.
I presumed that you knew that we currently
take in approx. 20,000. It's been on the news and in the
media.

It should be noted that the increased flow
of asylum seekers to Australia is relatively small
in international terms. While Australia received
29,610 asylum applications in 2012, Turkey received
325,301, Jordan 135,946, Lebanon 134,896,
South Sudan 101,480 and France 97,643.

As the Refugee Council of Australia points out, in 2012
Australia gave refugee protection to 8,367 asylum
seekers and resettled 5,937 refugees from other countries.
That made us number 24, on the per capita basis, in the
world.

onthebeach,

We can't even begin to check mate
your obsessions. They border on
something very unhealthy, peculiar,
and frightening.

BTW: Was your previous moniker -
"Col Rouge?" on this forum.
Your posting style
is very similar to his.

@Lexi,

No. You are not evading the issue Lexi --but, as we have come to expect --you are misrepresenting the issue.

<<It should be noted that the increased flow
of asylum seekers to Australia is relatively small
in international terms. While Australia received
29,610 asylum applications in 2012, Turkey received
325,301, Jordan 135,946, Lebanon 134,896,
South Sudan 101,480 and France 97,643>>

It is even more important *to note*:


1) That *PER CAPITA* wise (a favorite measure of those on the Left, like Lexi, when it comes to matters like AGW ) Oz ranks at No.1 or No. 2 in the world in terms of resettlement, and

2) To compare or rank Oz's intake, where in --once you are in OZ you are in for good, and are eligible for all the benefits of citizenship --with places like Turkey, Syria, Pakistan,South Sudan etc who merely allow "refugees" to occupy a piece of their land for a short time with no intention of granting full, permanent citizenship is the height of mischievousness. And particularly so as it has been exposed and debunked numerous times on this very forum.

Also, to cite the Refugee Council whose govt funding depends on the continued inflow of "refugees" is akin to citing a tobacco company about the virtues of cigarette smoking!

Well done SPQR.

These people would make good Politicians. Full of half truths, divergence & straight out misrepresentation all the time.

Gentlemen,

The information that I gave earlier was taken from
The Saturday Age, July 20th 2013. It is not something
that was fabricated or made up.

And as The Age tells us, "The claim that Australia
resettles more refugees per capita than almost
any other nation should be treated with scepticism."

It's all in how you define it.

The article in The Age points out that although Australia
ranks third in the world for officially "resettling"
refugees. Most countries do not have official re-settlement
programs for refugees, simply adjusting their intake
according to the ebbs and flows of arrivals.

In 2012, Pakistan hosted 1.6 million asylum seekers and
refugees. Iran hosted 868.200, and Germany hosted 598,700.

While Australia had a generous refugee re-settlement program.
It is false to claim it was more generous in receiving
refugees than any other nation.

As The Age says, " Less than 1 per cent of the world's
refugees get access to re-settlement in any year, with
the bulk of the global protection of refugees being
carried out through asylum proceses."

Even a quick look at the global figures shows that the
increased flow of asylum seekers to Australia is
relatively small in international terms.

As stated earlier, "while Australia received only 29,610
asylum applications in 2012, Turkey received 325,301,
Jordan 135,946, Lebanon 134,896, South Sudan 101,480
and France 97,643."

And those gentlemen are the facts - whether you like
them or not.