No Lexi those are NOT the facts --they are no where near the facts.

The trick --the deceit-- is in the terms

The first, a misuse of "resettlement" as in :<<Most countries do not have official re-settlement programs for refugees, simply adjusting their intake according to the ebbs and flows of arrivals>>

What has actually happened is --in the case of Syria , Jordan , Pakistan etc--tens of thousands have poured across their border to escape a conflict and/or drought. They have not been *resettled* (in any meaningful sense of the word) and there is no intention to *resettle* them. And (ironically, given your attempted slur) most of their upkeep(food,water.shelter) is provided by the UN and donor countries like OZ,rather than the "host" country. The huge majority of such persons will sit there till the conflict ends or eases then return home.

The second term that is misused is "refugee". There is a tendency --much encouraged by advocates, like Lexi -- to label anyone who escapes from a war-zone "a refugee".The Refugee Convention does NOT define someone who is fleeing a conflict as a refugee.They would more correctly be described as displaced persons.

Evidence as to just how misleading it can be to call anyone who crosses a border a refugee can be seen in --one of her exemplary hosts -- Pakistan.Pakistan does not officially recognize it's border with Afghanistan.It would redraw the border deeper into Afghanistan, given half a chance. And the peoples on both sides of the border are of the same ethnicity and have been in the habit of moving back and forth at will.Mark O'Connor & William Lines in "Overloading Australia" trace the initial impetus of the inflow into Pakistan to a series of unseasonal droughts in Afghanistan.

So, sorry, Lexi,but there are few facts of worth in your source

Dear Lexi,

Sorry to seem to getting stuck into you, but I think the current figure is 14,000 and next year it is to be increased to around 20,000. Compare New Zealand's intake in the past year of 750.

I suggested somewhere above that the annual intake should be increased to 30,000 BUT the government should be far firmer to ensure that ONLY refugees who have gone through the proper processes and waited their turn, in hell-holes all around the world, not just in Indonesia, should be part of that 30,000, no more.

I made the ridiculous suggestion that people trying to enter Australia without the proper exit papers from the country they are leaving, and/or entry papers for Australia, should be flown back to Indonesia or Sri Lanka, from Christmas Island. No recriminations, no future barring, and an allocation of funds to assist the Indonesians to re-settle these poor people while they wait. In other words, they are back where they started. And, like so many others, they wait. It's a cruel world.

So, back to the question: what's your limit ?

Love,

Joe

Lexi is simply casting about for ways to divert and hijack the debate away from the matter of illegal aliens (because that is what many are) and the criminal gangs who act as their travel agents.

The number of refugees resettled in Australia is irrelevant to that, excepting for the discovery by Rudd -better late than never and only because there is an election in sight- that there are so many illegals taking advantage of the red carpet that Rudd provided that they and the industry of entrepreneurs taking advantage of it are having a serious effect on that bucket of taxpayers' money the government is entrusted with.

But as per usual and she has a lot of form for it, Lexi also chooses to ignore the number of migrants settled by Australia annually and every year since WW2. Diversification and rapid population growth are apparently good for Australians and the taxpayer must pay for it. The federal government will never give the electorate choice in that though. It is all 'Never you mind' and take it on faith.

Rudd believes in "Big Australia", notwithstanding that the electorate is opposed and there are concerns about sustainability, infrastructure over-run, effect on the cost of housing and loss of quality of life.

<Growth in Migration to Australia in 2011-12
Wednesday, June 19, 2013

On 14 June, The Department of Immigration and Citizenship Australia released a report which states that Australia has seen a growth in the number of migrants to the country's states and territories under permanent immigration routes.

According to the report, there were over 245,270 permanent migrants coming to Australia in 2011-12, an increase of 14.9 percent over the previous year (213,409). Nearly three-quarters of these new migrants chose to reside in the three largest states - New South Wales (28.9 percent), Victoria (25.1 percent) and Queensland (18.4 percent).>

http://www.migrationexpert.com/australia/visa/australian_immigration_news/2013/Jun/0/707/Growth_in_Migration_to_Australia_in_2011-12

Dear SPQR,

I guess then all the newspapers, The Age, Brisbane Times,
Sydney Morning Herald, Examiner, to name just a few
have all got it wrong. Here's the information from
the Sydney Morning Herald:

http://www.smh.com.au/national/resettlement-record-disputed-20130719-2qa0x.html

I won't insult your intelligence by suggesting that you
really believe what you've posted.

Lexi,

As the reporter you quoted admitted, it is all in how you define it. Where any discussion affects Australia you have a record of always choosing the slant that sledges Australia. Why do you do that?

I have already pointed out to you as many have done before now, Australia's world beating record of taking migrants, and the endless, extreme diversification policies that have been implemented without a mandate and without proper consultation and discussion with the Australian community. To insinuate (and worse!) as you continually do that Australia is somehow offended by other cultures is offensive and wrong.

Returning to the article you cherry-picked because it represents a skewed argument put by your preferred refugee advocates, some of whom could be supporting the criminal gangs that are the travel agents for illegal immigrants, why wouldn't you prefer the very simple statement by the Labor minister? Here it is from your article,

<Treasurer Chris Bowen bristled this week when a reporter suggested Australia took relatively few asylum seekers,

"I don't quite agree with the premise that Australia takes relatively few refugees on global terms," he said. "I understand where you're coming from in terms of the 43 million displaced people in the world, either refugees or in refugee-like situations. Yes, the 20,000 people that we take is a small proportion of that and always will be. But we do take more refugees per head of Australian population than any other nation in the world. We take either the second or third most in absolute terms, depending on how you calibrate your calculation.">

BTW, you have been asked numerous times what your numerical limit is, but you always duck the question. Why?

Dear Lexi,

That's just a bit dishonest of you, with love and respect - as the article points out,

"Australia ranks third in the world for officially resettling refugees. But most countries do not have official resettlement programs for refugees, simply adjusting their intake according to the ebbs and flows of arrivals."

And

"Less than 1 per cent of the world's refugees get access to resettlement in any year, with the bulk of the global protection of refugees being carried out through asylum processes".

Countries like Pakistan and Turkey and Jordan have borders with countries which are unstable or war-zones (but we don't), so of course like it or not, they 'take' many hundreds of thousands of refugees. We don't, yet we rank 'third in the world for officially resettling refugees.'

For our population, our 20,000 intake quota is close to 0.1 % of our population, which is seven times, per capita, that of our sheep-loving cousins across the Ditch. Some countries do better, but we're not that far behind the US on that score.

By the way: in relation to the PNG Solution: once refugees are processed on Manus, are they free to move to any other part of PNG ? The south coast, for instance ? Where sea-farers have long experience of bringing people to Daru and Boigu, four or five km from Australian territory, and then just across the Strait to Cape York, and the roads to Cairns ?

I guess, if something's worth doing, it's worth doing well.

Love,

Joe