Counterpunch: the figures on refugees tell the story

Eric says:

06:04am | 29/10/09

This article is based on silly assumptions about what people think.

First of all, the regular immigration intake is a separate issue from that of asylum seekers. It has nothing to do with the flood that is feared. It’s a controlled stream of people who are welcome in Australia, as they have always been.

Secondly,  the impending flood of asylum seekers is a future condition, not a present one. So citing figures for today and yesterday is irrelevant. The worry is that lack of border controls will lead to conditions such as in Europe and the United States, where border regions are swamped with overwhelming numbers of uncontrollable, unassimilable invaders.

The trend is what’s important, not today’s numbers. And the balance of world populations against our own is what’s important, not the little figures you cite.

Please don’t insult our intelligence with articles like this. At least make an effort to understand the issues before you presume to lecture us about them.

dan says:

06:15am | 29/10/09

Its a hard one. I’m all for increased immigration and accepting refugees should be a part of our immigration policy. However I tend to agree with the polititians that an open door policy on boat people will send the wrong message to people smugglers and before long numbers will increase. This increase will put the lives of more people at risk, and apparently there are tamil tiger fighters who are unwelcome in Sri Lanka looking for a new home, and we can’t guarantee that they won’t show up.

Adam Dennis says:

07:33am | 29/10/09

I’m not disposed to give Kevin Andrews the time of day - years ago he showed me what kind of a person he is, hence I’ll never pay attention to him again. I also note that I’m very much in favour of Australia accepting refugees, including the miserable few who come to our country by sea, uninvited.

That said, I believe we need to have a robust debate about our population. Anna talks about “keeping population decline at bay”. Really? Is that something we have to keep at bay? We’ve infested this planet to a point where our natural resources are starting to falter and we’ve arguably started to negatively impact the climate ... but we need to “keep population decline at bay”?

Australia is a large continent, and rich in many resources. But there’s at least one important resource we’re struggling with - water, of course. We simply can’t keep growing Melbourne and Sydney without new sources of water (genuinely new ones, I mean - not John Brumby’s rhetorical “new water”).

When Anna says that an annual population increase of 2.1% is “hardly an alarming figure”, she’s assuming that none of us have a calculator handy. Try this: enter 22 million in your calculator and multiply by 1.021. Now multiply the result by 1.021 another nine times. See how much our population can grow in ten years? How about twenty? Thirty? The numbers rapidly become scary - to me, anyway.

Let’s start a serious, unemotive debate about population. About how many people this continent can support, and what sort of infrastructure projects might be required to cope with growth. Let’s look at the impact of those projects on the environment. There should be no areas out of bounds in this discussion - we have to bravely ask ourselves whether there should be limits to keep births to replacement levels only.

But please leave Kevin Andrews out of it.

Shane From Melbourne says:

07:39am | 29/10/09

Absolute rubbish. Europe and the United States are continents whose environments can handle increased populations. Australia is a marginal environment that can barely handle 22 million let alone the 25 million or so that politicians are aiming for.

Miriam says:

07:47am | 29/10/09

US a country not a continent. And if aiming for 25 miliion… why would 78 tip the balance?

June says:

07:49am | 29/10/09

The issue is about Border Protection Policy. Kevin Rudd for the first time in his Prime Minetership has to make a decision without being able to use Ken Henry, Economists, GFC or Climate Change Scientists. In his first test to decide what to do with 75 asylum seekers on an Australian Customs Boat, he is fumbling and in a shambles with no one else to blame but himself. After all the Hoo Har about Howard and the previous Government border protection policy he finds himself doing the same thing with his Indonesian Solution. He has cheldren locked up on Christmas Island and also allows Indonesia to keep children behind razor wire. As we have seen in news reports out recently. Yet he is determined to off load these asylum seekers to Indonesia. If these people are genuine asylum seekers/refugees they should be quickly processed and bought to Australia. Not off loaded like a herd of cows in Indonesia to avoid his responsibilities of these desperate people.

Steve says:

08:07am | 29/10/09

Most people are missing the point, these people coming in here in boats are illegal, and are breaking Australian law, they should be sent back home immediately, and advised that due to breaking Australian Law, you are banned from Australia, When we accept new migrants even when you are admitted to Australia, you dont get anything given to you, but if you claim asylum, and are put up on christmas Island the governemnt pays you, why is this fair, if you are coming from USA or Canada, the Australian Govt does not pay you.

I believe we need to take firm action and say Australia is not a soft touch, we will not accept illegals, question why dont eg these illegals from Sri Lanka go to India where there is massive Sri Lankan population, or how about Japan, I wonder what Japan does with illegals, maybe we should set the same rules.

Queue jumpers you are not welcome

Billymac says:

08:11am | 29/10/09

The recent behaviour of politicians regarding this issue confirms again their main focus is power, not the good of the people.  I’m disgusted that these boat people are booted from end to end in a reprehensible game of political football. All efforts should be made to quickly ascertain the veracity of their claims to be genuine refugees and if they are, let them in. If not, send them home. Eric’s comments totally overlook the geographic element in this. The existence of treacherous oceans around this land that is “girt by sea” obviates any chance of a tidal wave of illegal immigrants.

Eric says:

08:15am | 29/10/09

June, if these people really were desperate, they’d be happy to stay in Indonesia where they’re safe.

Miriam, don’t play the fool. This isn’t about 78 people, it’s about millions. Australia has a very small population compared to the potential of Asia and Africa to generate illegal immigrants.

Barry says:

08:25am | 29/10/09

I wonder if dear Kevie will take a dip in the polls because of this issue? I’m sure that is all he is concerned about. He may actually be judged on a decision he has had to make for the first time, and can’t blame anyone else.

Julie says:

08:33am | 29/10/09

Eric - you can’t be serious, they’d be happy to stay in Indonesia where they are safe? Well why on earth do they ALL want to come to Australia? Safe in Indonesia? What a joke! They also choose Australia because we are now known as welcoming to refugees, which has been pushed by the Rudd Government as a political point scoring issue against the Howard Government prior to the last election. Mr Rudd you have caused this fiasco, now show some Leadership and do something!

Charles says:

08:37am | 29/10/09

I don’t understand why Ms Greer would favour those cashed up illegal migrants who try to jump to the head of the queue, to the disadvantage of those who, as she noted, are patiently waiting for resettlement in another country outside the usually fairly awful circumstances they currently find themselves in.  She does not appear to be a person who favours those with money getting an advantage over those without, so to support this principle in her article is quite surprising

As to classifying them as asylum seekers, the process for this is quite flawed, and is usually a product of bureaucratic convenience.  That is to say no real effort is made ti test the veracity of their claims, and in typical public service mode, the path of least resistance is the one usually sought, and they (UNHCR usually) will give in and characterise them as refugees on the flimsiest of reasons, so as to avoid any unnecessary dispute.  This unfortunately sends the signal to other cashed up illegal immigrants that there is a viable method to gain access to a country in better economic circumstances, and so the flow commences.

Sherlock says:

08:43am | 29/10/09

The refugee issue is a complex one that’s being faced worldwide. The English are working with the French at Calais to try and stem the tide and other European countries are putting in place their own measures to handle the increased amount of refugees.

Certainly there are many valid arguments on this issue. Few Australians fail to recognise our responsibility to accept out fair share of the world’s refugees. However an open door policy doesn’t appear to me to be the answer.

To we take everybody no matter how many keep coming or do we eventually say enough?  If we reach that point what do we do then? Isn’t this just delaying what will become an even bigger problem.

I can see both sides to the argument but the answer is well beyond my capabilities.

iansand says:

09:09am | 29/10/09

Why must refugees be poor?  Why can a “cashed up” person not be a refugee?

A moments thought shows that the middle classes are the ones who have the time, money and education to engage in activities that attract the adverse attention of the authorities in their homelands.

Carol says:

09:35am | 29/10/09

I bet Howard is sitting back in his arm chair laughing his head off at Rudd. See Mr Rudd it ain’t as easy as you thought it was.

Tim says:

09:39am | 29/10/09

@Iansand,
a refugee does not necessarily have to be poor.
However, a refugee with money should not benefit to the detriment of a refugee without money just because of their financial status.

Carl Palmer says:

09:41am | 29/10/09

Yep – KR is primarily concerned with his “friend of the chair” role that he will be playing in the near future. I also love his mutually exclusive “unapologetically tough but humane” line. Good one Kevvie.

As for the asylum seeks – queue jumpers - they take a gamble to come here then they shouldn’t be surprised at the outcome. If we accept them then it’s pretty much advertising the fact that the door is open. If that becomes the “policy” then watch the flood gates open. I think that’s happening now.

Anna, as for your last paragraph – based on the numbers it would seem that Europe is humanely benevolent to these asylum seekers and us Aussies are “unapologetically tough”. I’ll let you into a secret – I have seen first hand the impact that some refugees who have been given asylum in a European country has had. The increased crime rate by some of these people is frightening. What a local community had to do to protect themselves was a very sobering and eye opening experience. I’m all for helping people but it was certainly a case of the rescuer becoming the victim. 

Based on the numbers in the last paragraph and based on what I’ve seem, my recommendation would be to reduce our number from 4750 to 2750.

Louise says:

10:04am | 29/10/09

Eric, I couldn’t agree more.  Australians don’t fear immigration. The vast majority of us are 1st, 2nd or 3rd generation migrants. What people object to is an uncontrolled, open door policy allowing anyone who is prepared to risk their life on an unseaworthy vessel to become a permanent Australian resident within 90 days. Ask a recent British migrant how long their residency application took (up to 2 years ).  According to the article 4750 people applied to Australia for asylum last year. In a few more months that will probably be the number arriving by boat,  so what are the chances for protection for anyone applying through the UN to come to Australia. Or is it just too bad for those who do the right thing?

Anna Greer says:

10:22am | 29/10/09

Hi Louise,

The last figure is the number of people arriving by boat or plane and applying for asylum. Australia takes refugees by two methods- through the UN resettlement program and onshore applicants.

Regards,
Anna

Garry T says:

10:24am | 29/10/09

It’s quite obvious we need to return to the Pacific Solution, it worked. Rudds solution is no solution!

E says:

10:39am | 29/10/09

This may be a stupid question, but do we have any evidence that the Sri Lankan government is persecuting law abiding people of Tamil ethnicity?

Garry says:

10:50am | 29/10/09

Despite this reporter tarring a Migrant who came in to Australia through the correct migration process with a refugee who criminally breaks laws is disgraceful. The person who comes in via migration is not the issue here; the issue is the illegal refugees who come by boat or plane and demand to be let in. They travel through several countries - all of which are safer than where they escaped from. They arrive in a port town, pay criminals money and blindly accept ‘the boat is sinking so they will pick you up and save you’. This is wrong.
How can you compare the total intake of Europe to the intake in Australia, how many people are in Europe, how much more infrastructure, moveability and opportunities are there in Europe compared to Australia?
Let’s get political grandstanding and biased media out of this debate and ask the questions, ‘who is in need of Australian help’ and how do we stop an illegal from believing a broken down boat and paying a person is obviously not a legal way to get in. Are they desperate maybe, but so are so many others do we allow illegal’s just because they paid someone to smuggle them in?
This argument is about a fair system. Is a person on a boat in an Indonesian harbour more deserving than someone living in a camp on a countries border where genocide, murder, inhuman conditions, crime and sexual abuses are normal day to day living?
Tell me, you see two people on the street, one beaten, ragged and thin from hunger and asking for a dollar and you see another who is dressed better, healthier and demanding your dollar. Who do you give your dollar too, the one that needs it or the one that demands it loudly threatening to go on hunger strike or throw a child in your media to embarrass you into submitting?  Is that desperation? Maybe but to ignore the one who needs our help more is not humanitarian. Picking the ‘screamer, blackmailer and will pay criminals is ‘let them in to keep them quiet’ very humanitarian don’t you think.
I want to see more refugees come to Australia, many will contribute to our country but I want law abiding one’s not one’s who commit crime to get here and I want only those we can handle and sustain. 
I do not care if it is 1 or 1% of our intake who are illegal’s, do we want people like that in Australia?

N says:

10:59am | 29/10/09

Anna, you do realise that Iran, Pakistan and Syria are all border countries to major war zones? Hence there grossly inflated “intake” of refugees. Your article seems to suggest that they are openly accepting people by choice, not circumstance; and in contrast we should be ashamed for accepting a trivial 4750.

watty says:

11:11am | 29/10/09

The U.N resettlement program.Does that allow signatories to United Nations Charters on Refugees to duck shove boatloads of SriLankans to countries which are non signatories to these Charters?

Wouldn’t that be quite inhimane as there are no guidelines for the treatment of these boat people in non-signatory countries.

Not that an Australian Governemnt would ever condone such a “solution”?

george says:

11:15am | 29/10/09

With Global Warming we will see more and more refugees given that rising seas levals and droughts, natural disatsters, moonsoon and freak weather patterns will get worse.  The UN has predicted millions will be displaced over the next few years and they have to go somewhere. Therefore Australia needs to simply open up its borders and welcome these people with open arms.

Anna Greer says:

11:16am | 29/10/09

Hi N,

I am merely pointing out that it is poor countries who overwhelmingly shoulder the burden of hosting refugees and that it isn’t too much to ask that Australia accept the 5000 odd who arrive here by boat and plane.

Regards,
Anna

Darin says:

12:04pm | 29/10/09

Anna, while I applaud your attempt to introduce statistics into the debate, simply quoting figures from the UNHCR or other sources without clear explanation of what they mean does not allow the real story on refugees to be told or add any clear perspective.

While 2000 and 2001 were the high points in asylum seeker numbers for Australia, that does not refute claims that the number of asylum seekers has increased over the last few years. Further, while 2006 may have been a twenty year low, as you point out the number of refugees that apply for or are even granted asylum is only a small percentage of the total global refugee population.  As a result, the number of refugees accepted is not going to be affected, which is born out in the numbers, with 12,349 humanitarian visas granted in 2000/01 compared to 13,017 in 2006/07.

One could even use the UNHCR to argue that Australia is potentially facing an increase in the number of asylum seekers. The UNHCRs latest quarterly report for 2009 states that asylum claims in Australia have increased by 27 per cent over the last year. But regardless of whether it is up or down, it does not change the fact that Australian’s are entitled to expect that borders are patrolled and that people do not arrive by illegal means.

While the majority of refugees are hosted by developing countries, the implication in your article is that Australia nor the developed world is doing their fair share and are not accepting anywhere near what they should. However, hosting simply means that refugees are physically within a country and does not equate to the granting of asylum, and it certainly does not compare to the level of medical and welfare support, as well residency and citizenship, that is provided to accepted asylum seekers in Australia and other developed nations. Furthermore, the cost of maintaining UN refugees camps in host nations, and the provision of medical, food and other services is predominently funded and provided by developed nations.

I personally believe that Australia can and should accept a higher number of refugees. But I don’t support encouraging people to risk their lives by jumping on boats when they are no longer in immediate danger. I also believe that because the number of places that Australia can offer will never satisfy the demand, we have to maintain an orderly humanitarian program. Those refugees, and usually the ones who are most vulnerable, that follow the process and apply through the proper channels should not be disadvantaged by those with more money who attempt to jump the queue.

Bob Mellows says:

02:16pm | 29/10/09

We need to go to the root of the problem, then there will be no refugees.

Carl Palmer says:

02:32pm | 29/10/09

We all know that there are millions of refugees around the world and we all know that it is impossible to give everyone asylum in a developed country.  We know that the vast majority are genuine refugees and do need assistance. We also know that people will do whatever they can to escape their hell hole. Therefore boatpeople will always be a problem for various countries.  I don’t know the current arrangements or agreements that are in place with the UN but it’s clearly not working. A number of European countries for example put their asylum seekers on a plan and ship them back to where they came from as soon as they set foot on their soil. So, what’s the solution?

There are many comments here about this that and the other but no suggestions (sorry to anyone I may have missed) as to a possible solutionI(s). OK I’ll have a crack.

As an everyday punter who doesn’t possess the sophisticated skills of those who reside in Canberra I’ll put this up (no doubt I’ll be quickly shot down) and I’ll use Australia as an example.

We negotiate with the UN on a quota of asylum seekers that we will accept and let’s say for argument sake that it’s 10,000 refugees PA. The quota could be an agreed calculation that is applied to all developed countries or it could be just a negotiated outcome. We then inform the UN that we will be happy to take 10,000 plus an increase of say 30% ie up to 13,000 however it comes with some strings attached.

1.  The 13,000 will only be admitted into the country one way
2.  Anyone who attempts to enter via any other means will be turned back
3.  If the UN feels that strongly, they can take responsibility for the welfare of “illegals” by processing at various UN locations scattered around the world.
4.  In the event of an economic downturn / depression (god forbid) we reserve the right to reassess our position.
5.  We are happy to increase our quota should circumstances change
6.  The arrangements are reviewed periodically

And the outcomes?

The process is clear for all.
We meet our global obligations and provide asylum to those who really need help provided they meet the criteria to enter the country.
It sends a clear signal that any other approach will not be tolerated.
We are not portrayed to the world as been inhumane – (I’m taking the Indian bashing issue as an example and the possible negative economic impact that it could have on our economy). In other words we are doing our bit.
The boatpeople trade is significantly reduced.

I’m happy to go out of my way to help people and I’m happy to have them come into my home via the front door but I’m not happy to have people rock up on my back door and expect me to dump someone else for them.

jim fish says:

03:30pm | 29/10/09

Look, those of you who still think that those seeking refuge in Australia by arriving in a boat are somehow breaking the law - WRONG! Get it right! There’s a lot of ignorance displayed in the comments here. Surprise surprise. Australia is supposed to be a land for underdogs, battlers and the fair go. More like the land of selfish bigots. This debate makes me despair (again) ... Remember, the vast number of people seeking asylum are eventually assessed as genuine refugees and settled here. I’d go on but it’s impossible to get through to the closed-minded - I’m just writing this to help keep my blood pressure down.

Kim says:

04:58pm | 29/10/09

Well done jim fish ( 4.30 pm   29/10).
To all those who talk about queues - what queues are there really in countries in turmoil such as sri lanka, afghnaistan, iraq etc.?
Let’s start also rounding up all the queue jumpers who jumped off the planes and who are a little bit more like “us” ( the WASPs anyway).
And tell me, in your heart of hearts, what reaction would some of the “send them back where they come from” brigade have if the boat of 78 Sri Lankans was instead full of white farmers forced off the land in Zimbabwe?

EP says:

05:59pm | 29/10/09

Jim Fish—the law is wrong.

The Refugee Convention of 1948 is far out of date. Most of the world’s countries didn’t even sign it.

Time to step into the 21st century and leave your old prejudices behind. If we don’t control our borders, we will soon be destroyed.

Darin says:

07:12pm | 29/10/09

Jim Fish, instead of labeling people ignorant, selfish bigots and closed-minded, perhaps you should actually take the time to explain your position; namely, why its not illegal to apply for asylum upon arrival on Australian territory. If you did that, you would be engaging in a debate and discussion, rather than getting upset.

However, having said that I will respond to your assertion. While seeking asylum in Australia is not illegal, it is illegal to enter Australia through unauthorised means, and those engaging in people smuggling are also acting illegally. The government uses the term unlawful arrivals for a very specific and technical reason, and it accurately describes the circumstances. It is for this very reason that Australia can detain claimants until their status is determined.

Australia is a land of migrants, and it is ingrained in our popular culture to support the underdog. But the ‘fair go’ applies to everyone, whether old or new or potential Australians. its not about special treatment, but making sure people are treated fairly and equally. This includes following the established processes and not circumventing humanitarian programs.

It is easy to give in to emotion and take the easy step of saying all refugees need protection and are deserving of a better life and escape from the torment of being displaced and therefore Australia should accept all boat arrivals. However, there are serious consequences involved, and one has to think of not only the highly visible small number who show up on our borders, but also the ones availing themselves of the proper processes that we don’t see. That is the true meaning of the fair go and standing up for the underdog.

marley says:

07:23pm | 29/10/09

Carl Palmer - just to let you know how things work - the Australian government decides it has so many openings in a year for refugees to be selected abroad.  This is based on its total capacity to integrate refugees, and an estimate of how many “onshore” claimants it will get.  Australia then decides which refugee groups abroad will get priority for those slots it has available.  The UNHCR offices in the various countries hosting refugees work with Australia to process refugees out of the camps.  It’s not as though the UNHCR simply imposes refugees on us - it doesn’t.  The only variable in the equation is the number of refugees who arrive on our doorstep, whether by boat or air - and that’s not something under the control of either the UNHCR or Australia.  Once they’re here, though, we are obligated to deal with them under the terms of the Convention.  There is no choice in the matter, we cannot set quotas on this group, nor tell the UNHCR we won’t take them.  We HAVE to deal with them So, in the situation of an economic downturn, it’s the offshore quota that will crumble, not the onshore arrivals, be they by boat or air.

And KIm - for Afghanis anyway, the queues are in the refugee camps in Pakistan - thousands of people there, hoping to be processed for resetlement.  Push for an increase in the numbers we take out of the camps - they’re the people in the most desperate situations.

ralph says:

07:43pm | 29/10/09

darin,

if it was illegal to arrive in australia unauthorised our gaols and courts system would be full of people facing charges for entering australia without a visa. not the case. not illegal.

if you don’t have reason to come to australia without a visa, or you over stay your visa you are deported, if you are an asylum seeker your claim is processed and a decision is made over whether you are able to stay in australia.

get it?

Carl Palmer says:

07:49pm | 29/10/09

Jim Fish - are you advocating opening the boarders to all asylum seekers since as you say the “vast number of people seeking asylum are eventually assessed as genuine refugees”?  Great solution YOUR BP is now fixed. Selfless solution.
Kim – for the sake of simplicity let’s say any “illegals”, by road, boat, plane – whatever, the mode is truly irrelevant.  Re Zimbabwe the same – the country is also IRRELEVENT!!!!!!! 

I don’t consider myself a bigot nor do I consider myself the saviour of all those who seek asylum. Great – throw rocks & call names huge contribution to the discussion - Jim Fish & Kim your suggested solution(s)?

Dan says:

04:33am | 30/10/09

Eric % 7:04 am, “where border regions are swamped with overwhelming numbers of uncontrollable, unassimilable invaders.” If this isn’t fear mongering I don’t know what is. Eric, there us not an overwhelming number of uncontrollable, unassimilable invaders on the borders of any country, let alone Australia. Talk about ignorance.

Maria says:

07:08am | 30/10/09

i hope all you people realise where the whole refugee/asylum seeker issue has arisen from:
The increase in birth rates in these (mostly) developing countries.
This issue needs to be fought at its core, or else it will never end. The governments of all countries need to figure out how to (in practice, not theory) slow down these increasing rates so that the countries don’t ‘flood’ themselves and ‘sink’ other countries too.

After all, since when has finding a cure stopped the prevention?

ralph says:

08:04am | 30/10/09

birth rates? Maria that is ridiculous. The western world consumes 90 per cent of the world’s resources. We are the ones who need to control ourselves. We live comfortably off the backs of the Niger Delta’s riches, we buy cheap clothes by keeping a permanent underclass in every undeveloped nation.

read this please:

http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2009/09/29/the-population-myth/

“While there’s a weak correlation between global warming and population growth, there’s a strong correlation between global warming and wealth.

“In May the Sunday Times carried an article headlined “Billionaire club in bid to curb overpopulation”. It revealed that “some of America’s leading billionaires have met secretly” to decide which good cause they should support. “A consensus emerged that they would back a strategy in which population growth would be tackled as a potentially disastrous environmental, social and industrial threat.”(9) The ultra-rich, in other words, have decided that it’s the very poor who are trashing the planet. You grope for a metaphor, but it’s impossible to satirise.”

Also, isn’t it bleeding obvious these people are fleeing wars and tyrrany?

ralph says:

08:06am | 30/10/09

Also:

“People breed less as they become richer, but they don’t consume less; they consume more. As the habits of the super-rich show, there are no limits to human extravagance. Consumption can be expected to rise with economic growth until the biosphere hits the buffers. Anyone who understands this and still considers that population, not consumption, is the big issue is, in Lovelock’s words, “hiding from the truth”. It is the worst kind of paternalism, blaming the poor for the excesses of the rich.”

Darin says:

01:40pm | 30/10/09

Ralph, to enter Australia unauthorised contravenes the Migration Act 1958. Therefore, by definition it is illegal to enter Australia unauthorised. Being illegal, the Act allows for those who have entered unauthorised to be detained and processed for deportation. One of the few ways to avoid that is to apply for asylum under the rules of the Refugee Convention.

In addition, there are criminal sanctions that can be applied depending on the nature of the unauthorised arrival under various other Commonwealth legislation. This could include people smuggling, or illegal fishing, for example. These unauthorised arrivals do in fact end up in our courts and our prisons, particularly in the Northern Territory.

Get it?

Maria says:

01:50pm | 30/10/09

wow, ralph

i’m not (nor is this article) talking about consumerism at ALL, nor am I talking about global warming. If you want those threads, maybe search elsewhere.

I am talking about how as resources become thin whilst birth rates rise (partly due to lack of education on contraceptive use) in developing countries, people cannot live. Political, social (etc) strife becomes evident as overpopulation occurs and people end up searching for places better than their own.

I did in no way infer that “it’s the very poor who are trashing the planet”.
I don’t know how you got that out of ‘birth rates’.

I admit I stated something very generalistic, yet I did not think I would have to explain what it has NOT got to do with.

Carl Palmer says:

02:37pm | 30/10/09

Marley – thanks for that. What you have outlined makes perfect sense – except for the treatment of the offshores.

Working with agencies such as UNHCR I assume that Australia targets our refugee program to those places that it deems most in need. If that’s correct then those refugees have a priority over other refugee locations around the world. So there is a “queue”.

The quota that I was referring to is the same as the “openings” you refer to – a number is calculated. What I was suggesting was to increase the onshore refugees in lieu of rejecting the ad hoc offshore arrivals. So, if the “estimate offshore” is 3000 for the year, then let’s make it 5000 – but onshore refugees. I would still be happy to process the 5000 even though only 1000 of the estimated 3000 arrived on our shores.

What I find interesting is you comment that in “an economic downturn, it’s the offshore quota that will crumble”. How is that achieved? Do the offshore refugees stop coming because there is an economic downturn? Let’s permanently crumble the offshore.

I have a problem with the “Convention” because it doesn’t solve the problem (it’s actually being ignored by some countries in Europe) and encourages these types of “refugees”. We are condoning the refugee trade and the money that these immoral individuals make. I would have no doubt that they would be making all sorts of promises to those poor sods in an effort to get their hands on the money so that they can expand their “business”. We have to learn from Europe because it isn’t working over there.

Marley thank you for the time you took to explain the process.

Craig says:

12:47am | 31/10/09

For those who advocate open borders.  When do you say enough? - factoring in cultural impact upon host society (the Australia that exists now would be radically changed and along with that, institutions which keep our nation stable, our (your) way of life.), infrastructure, environment (water anyone? - carbon emissions? Do you even care?) ? There are millions of refugees around the globe. Is it your contention that the West should host them all? Have you ever assessed the impact of an open border policy on your own lives and family? Change is inevitable, but the pace of change as the result of short sighted feel good policies, will not necessarily be for the best for you, your loved ones and fellow Australian citizens (no, not an outmoded concept). Assuming you aren’t the self-loathing type and have a genuine interest in the well being of Australians in mind.

Andrew Smith says:

08:37pm | 01/11/09

Population figures are artifically high, and based on recent arrivals who may have applied for permanent, or temporary residency up to three years ago…..during boom times. Credible population projection for 2050 is 28 million from the Population Reference Group basedon ABS data.

Raw population data includes long term WHV tourists e.g. backpackers, so do we tell the tourist industry sorry you cannot have any tourists? Education sorry you cannot recruit from overseas (students on temporary visas)? Business you cannot cover skill shortages using 457 tempory work visas etc.?

While many people in media, politics, selective demographers and environmentalists do not want population growth, refugees, immigration, etc. due to concern for the environment, carbon footprint, security,  employment, housing affordability etc. it seems to be more about Australia’s aggressive lack of ability to compromise (keeps real estate industry spruiking)?

More importantly, where is public discussion and government policy federal, state and local on regional development including merging and moving state departments regional, sustainable environment (smaller houses, less cars), urban planning, transport, skill shortages, ageing population, decreasing tax base, pension/health shortfalls etc.?

Positive result of no action on aforementioned issues, and knee jerk policies stopping new arrivals under whole migration system would possibly be a 20-30% drop in property prices