What is worse?

[donnashuggy]

Those that overstay their visa that fly in (majority)

or

Those that arrive by boat.......with the possibily of seeking asylum (unlikely) and sent back.

I generally keep up with what is going on and don't understand the governments fixation with boats when the numbers are the clear minority.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@donnashuggy wrote:

Stopping the boats was one of the major reasons that the current government got in power, cruelty is popular.

---

How do you know that?

Have you asked everyone who voted to remove the Labor government that they did so on the back of the "stop the boat policy"?

[boris1gary]

Tall,

In your post you ask that we take note that per capita we have one of the highest intakes in the category in the world.

This is simply not correct.

Just some more MYTH busting

Myth 11: Refugees should stay in the first country they come to and ‘join the queue’

Fact: Australia has not taken a single refugee from the UNHCR in Jakarta – from the so-called ‘queue’ - for more than three years. This is despite the rhetoric from Australian politicians for asylum seekers to be processed in Indonesia. It should also be noted that UNHCR centre in Indonesia was set up by Australia with Indonesian support. Refugees cannot stay in Indonesia because Indonesia is not a signatory to the Refugee Convention.

There is no requirement in international law for refugees to seek asylum in the first country they come to. Some developed countries have made this an additional requirement in order to avoid processing claims, leaving the large numbers of asylum seekers in camps in Third World countries. International law requires that asylum seekers should not be penalised according to the way in which they enter a country. Australia’s current policy does not accord with this requirement.

Some people have given up on the ‘queue’ and resorted to coming by boat. 24 of those who recently died when their ship sank off the coast of Indonesia had already been granted refugee status by the UNHCR in Jakarta. Many more had relations in Australia who had been provided with asylum but were not allowed access to their wives and children. Simply, the ‘queue’ does not work.

[**meep**]

---

@tall_bearded wrote:

Of all of the countries you have mentioned,  how many give residence status to those who qualify as refugees.

Yes some countries allow more in.  But of those who you have identifiedas accepting more,  how may provide permanent radiance and ultimate citizenship to those who are there. 

Or are you saying we should follow their example.  That is instead of focussing our refugee humanitarian effort to relocation and residence and ultimately citizenship, we cease the e avctivities and allow the UN to open and run refugee camps and when someone arrives and claims safe haven we simply send them there, on the understanding, when it time for them to go home, they leave, and if they wot go voluntarily, they will be fordable removed.

---

There seems to be a lack of understanding about intake vs resettlement.  There are millions of  refugees in refugee camps, of course Australia doesn't compare with that.   How many people live in Australia's refugee camps currently?  

[**meep**]

boris1gary - what is the source of your information and when was it published?

[boris1gary]

my replies to tall I posted where I got the info and while it is a little dated, not that much has changed.

Below comes from Facts Fight Back which is powered? by the Australian Institute.

Does Australia take the most refugees? > Check the facts

July 23, 2013 · in Immigration

Who: “We 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” Chris Bowen.

The claim: Australia takes the most refugees per capita and takes the second or third most in absolute terms.

The facts: The  UNHCR Global Trends Report 2010 shows that Australia took one refugee per 1, 000 population and ranked 69th in the world for per capita refugee intake. 2012 UNHCR figures for absolute refugee intake show that Australia took nearly 30,000 refugees and ranked 49th in the world.

Discussion of evidence: The country that takes the most refugees per head of population is Jordan, with 72.9 refugees per 1,000 people. The table below shows Australia’s per capita refugee intake compared to the top 5 countries.

Rank	Country	Refugees per 1,000 population (2010)
1	Jordan	72.9
2	Syrian Arab Rep.	49.3
3	Congo, Rep. of	32.9
4	Chad	31
5	Montenegro	25.9
69	Australia	1

The country with the largest absolute refugee intake is Pakistan with more than 1.6 million refugees. The table below compares Australia’s refugee intake compared to the top 5 countries.

Rank	Country	Refugees (up to 2012)
1	Pakistan	1,638,447
2	Iran (Islamic Republic of)	868,239
3	Germany	589,680
4	Kenya	564,906
5	Syrian Arab Republic	476,481
49	Australia	29,996

[**meep**]

Never mind.  I found it.  The statistics you provided earlier were published in 2006.

The country that takes in the most refugees - where are they housed?

Are you aware that Australia is amongst a small number of countries that participate in the refugee resettlement program?

Since we are currently ranked 3rd, do you think we could ever be equal to the top ranked country?

[boris1gary]

meep, I don't think the numbers are something to be especially proud of 0.267 refugees per 1000 population.

According to the Refugee Council of Australia, Australia ranked second in 2012 for the resettlement of refugees per capita (0.267 refugees per 1,000 population) beaten only by Canada (0.283 per 1,000). In absolute terms the top three resettlement countries were America (66,300), Canada (9,600) and Australia (5,900).

I don't think we will do any better any time soon. Below was written just before the last election by a mob called Pro Bono Australia,

The Liberal-National Coalition’s proposed policies offer even less hope than those being implemented by the Government. Regressive policies such as reintroducing Temporary Protection Visas (TPVs), maintaining offshore processing for all asylum seekers arriving by boat and cutting Australia’s resettlement program will have serious consequences for the health and wellbeing of people seeking protection in Australia and further reduce access to durable solutions at a time when global protection needs are on the rise.

[donnashuggy]

No I have not asked everyone crikey.

How do you feel about those from New Zealand (with criminal records) that have been allowed into Australia?

[donnashuggy]

Why do you think Tony Abbott set his preferences this way?

WHO THE PARTIES ARE PREFERENCING IN WARRINGAH

LIBERAL

1. Tony Abbott

2. Ula Falanga, Christian Democratic Party (Fred Nile Group)

3. Brodie Stewart, Palmer United Party

4. Mike Cottee, Stable Population Party

5. Mike Bloomfield, Rise Up Australia Party

6. Jules Zanetti, Labor

7. Will Kitching, Greens

[amber-eyed-girl]

Well, when the only others left are Labor and the Greens, they would have been criticised if they had not done that for 5,6,7. To be fair.

I understand what you are saying though. But I believe all that means is that they put him last in reality. as they would not be putting Labor or the Greens ahead of anyone, even the devil 🙂