Budget Media Release
I’ll admit tonight I am VERY confused. I happened to notice the budget statement in relation to our humanitarian visa program for the 2012 -2013 year.
“‘Australia resettles the third largest number of refugees of any country, and we resettle more refugees, per capita, than any other nation”
Now this seemed, to me, to contradict a lot of the media releases from refugee advocacy groups about how many refugees we take. I decided to do a little research of my own.
According to the UNHCR 2011 statistics, Australia took 0.98 refugees per 1,000 population, or 21, 805. That does not look like the “third largest number of refugees of any country”.
I looked at some other rather well-known countries (other countries take more, these are a selection only):
Sweden: 82,629 – 8.81 per 1,000 population
Switzerland: 48,813 – 6.37 per 1,000 population
Germany: 594,269 – 7.22 per 1,000 population
France: 200,687 – 3.20 per 1,000 population
Canada: 165,549 – 4.87 per 1,000 population
United Kingdom: 238,150 – 3.84 per 1,000 population
United States: 264,574 – 0.85 per 1,000 population
Thailand: 96,675 – 1.40 per 1,000 population
That’s enough transcribing for me. All the statistics can be found on the UNHCR site. By the look of it, Australia is well down the list, which is consistent with what I read from refugee advocacy groups.
Australia is designating 13,750 places under the humanitarian program in 2012–13. Am I the only one who finds the media release rather confusing?
The Asylum Seeker Resource Centre (ASRC) seems to confirm my thoughts:
| Australia’s world ranking 2010:• By total no. refugees: 46th
• By pop. size (per capita): 69th • Wealth (GDP) per capita: 79th |
Who on earth wrote the budget media release? What sources did that writer use to substantiate the glowing assertions about Australia’s contribution to the global humanitarian crisis?
Is this a pretty good example of “spin”?
What is your opinion? Please share, because I’d love to know how we can reconcile the facts with the media release!
Related articles
- Canada to accept more refugees (thehimalayantimes.com)
- Asylum seekers to experience homestay (rowenadelarosayoon.wordpress.com)
- Asylum Seekers in Australia: more of the same (teamoyeniyi.com)
- Unbalanced article fuels moral panic (teamoyeniyi.com)
- Australia the Lucky Country unless you are an asylum seeker (teamoyeniyi.com – re new legislation passed August 2012)
Random Observations of Life 
Figures suggesting Australia takes more refugees, on a per capita basis, than other safe havens are derived by figures according to Continental figures…..more than Europe, North America etc etc. Australia is an island, a country and a continent hence the confusion. Check it out.
LikeLike
I don’t think so Bob. 🙂 I mean, yes, Australia IS an island, a country and a continent, however the “confusion” is related to which figures are used to compare what between nations, not the fact Australia is a “three-in-one” bit of land.
LikeLike
I think you misunderstood/misread the article. The release was not claiming that Australia is 3rd in the ranks of refugee recipients, it is 3rd in the ranks of refugee re-settling, which is an entirely different thing.
LikeLike
No, I think you may have missed the point of the article. The point was around the spin placed on the statistics.
LikeLike
Ali, thank you so much for clearly advising the true figures we should be looking at. I think its time people stopped being so harsh on Aussies and had a reality check and listen to voices of rational thinking and intelligence.
LikeLike
No, Ali’s numbers are very selective and not the ones we should be looking at.
But we will never agree, so let’s just leave it at that.
LikeLike
For instant I thought that it is official site but after I go deep – I understood the situation, Australia require a new understanding for the decade which require the younger people to understand that the time may change and diverse the running formula in the world and Australia may need these immigrants to grow as a life nation ( see the Australian growth of population) which is lower than the required percentage to maintain a positive growth not negative as it is running!
LikeLike
In all honesty, no, we don’t actually need asylum seekers to grow our population: we could just increase some of the other migrant streams. 🙂 Plus as a nation we don’t want to get too big.
That does NOT mean we should increase those other streams when there are people seeking safe havens. I believe they should be given priority. If we can train our locals in the occupations we need, we can train asylum seekers as well. Yes, that costs us a bit more than bringing in a skilled migrant. The money we spend on incarcerating the asylum seekers would educate many, many more.
LikeLike
This IS an official site! 😉 Team Oyeniyi’s official site!
LikeLike
this was not help at all al,
you dont know what you are on about anyone could make these numbers up.
LikeLike
Skilled legal migrants don’t cost,as your post suggests, they bring instant and lasting revenue. By far most common procedure for skilled migrants is to come to Australia on temporary visas, for jobs which Australians, including refugees, can’t or don’t want to do. Government profits thousands of dollars on various visa fees and charges on each applicant,even before immigrant arrives onshore. Due to eligibility criteria, migrants are young, highly competent and healthy individuals, who start to contribute to local economy as soon as they come. They also move here their savings, buy all basic needs etc. injecting many more thousands each to local economy. As mostly single high income earners they charged higher tax rates and subject to all possible surcharges and extras. After 2 years of employment, temp. migrant can apply for permanent visa, so whole procedure, with charges and fees and medical checkups repeats again, so government and medical institutions can profit from it once more. If migrant marries someone from his home country,or anyone non-Australian, which is the case most of the time, government happily repeats whole procedure for spouse again, charging draconian fees, 2-3 thousand $ just as application fee, even then it takes 9-12 months to get a spouse visa, not even PR, just to reunite with your partner. So on and so forth, milking processes continues for many years. It takes at least 4 years before migrant can get citizenship and vote, thus there is no political cost of excessive economical and financial exploitation by government.
Just yesterday government announced yet another increase in spouse visa fees, third this year, by 700-1000$!
To add insult to injury this immoral profiteering on vulnerable group is presented as one of government savings measures! If there is one thing both sides of Australian politics have consensus on, it is their disrespect of skilled migrants, while acknowledging their benefits.
LikeLike
[…] Australia’s refugee intake – Budget 2012 […]
LikeLike
[…] side is or will, could or should do. Not quite as much noise over this as there is over a few asylum seekers arriving by boat though, or perhaps I just read the wrong […]
LikeLike
You must be daft. These figures are refugee housing or hosting.
What Chris was talking about was refugee resettlement – integration into the community, not putting them in camps.
We are the highest per capita in the world.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/opinion/if-only-other-countries-took-as-many-refugees/story-e6frgd0x-1226429418748
LikeLike
Are you suggesting Canada puts people in camps? I think you need to read the articles again to clarify for yourself.
LikeLike
So when same site states that there is only 21,805 refugees in Australia, putting it on 46th position in world ranking, our lefties have no trouble with it, quoting it on every possible platform. Even though it is very clear that this number barely counts for refugees accepted just within past two years. It is also clear that Australian govt. doesn’t report refugees as such to UNHCR once they get “naturalized”, i.e. get residency and put on welfare.
Yet when it comes to fact that Australia ranks number 3 in annual refugee relocation intake, you immediately call it media spin.. very-very objective.
LikeLike
I am not quite sure what you are trying to say. Australia is NOT ranked number 3 in the world EXCEPT for in one very small, specific UN resettlement program.
Yes, I was very objective, for I presented a wide range of sources.
I am not sure where you think I called it media spin, as it is political spin, not journalists in the media. Also, I would like to see the source for your assertion of the number in Australia right now.
I am also a conservative, just for the record!
LikeLike
Your words:
” Who on earth wrote the budget media release? […] Is this a pretty good example of “spin”? ” hence media spin. And I didn’t claim you blamed journalists, am sure you know that journalists are not the only ones who use media as a tool.
Same with numbers, they are from your article “By total no. refugees: 46th ” and number 21,805 is from UNHCR link again from your article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jun/20/refugee-statistics-unhcr-data. All numbers are there assuming you want to see them.
Finally refugee relocation program is not by any means “very small, specific UN resettlement program” is is very important, as UNHCR states it. There are other numbers as well, e.g. Australian contributions to UNCHR funds etc, but apparently they show Australia in too good light to be noticed by leftists. I really struggle to understand why some self proclaimed progressives take inexplicable masochistic joy in belittling Australias efforts in refugee issues. Seriously, I am immigrant myself, and sick of same stereotypes actively endorsed by some groups from here. Just a month ago, in Korea, local guys upon hearing that I live in oz (I am typical middle eastern ), instantly asserted that “it must be very hard for [me], they are all so racists there..” In Korea! Where I got verbally assaulted on the train just for holding hands with my asian gf, who is not even Korean, they just thought so.
LikeLike
I know where the number came from, but you seemed to see it as such a high number. I do not. That is the assertion I was looking for. The UN also states the number of that program needs to be increased 10 fold to 800,000. There are 15 million refugees, 80,000 is a mere drop in the ocean!
There is prejudice in every country, of some sort. While I am sorry you were verbally abused in Korea, that in itself has nothing to do with Australia’a refugee intake.
I have been told it is often the case that migrants are themselves the harshest rejectors of new people coming, for reasons I do not understand because I believe the opposite, of course.
It has nothing to do with “lefties”: it is about humanitarianism. Are you suggesting Malcolm Fraser is a “leftie”?
LikeLike
Forgot to mention – I see how you got media spin. I was drawing the distinction between articles such as highlighted in https://teamoyeniyi.com/2012/05/06/unbalanced-article-fuels-moral-panic/ and government written and issued statements. One I clearly see as journalism gone wrong and the other government playing games with numbers.
LikeLike
I already proved you with numbers that it’s you on behalf of so called “refugee advocate groups” who constantly play with numbers. The government does play with numbers, but only to downgrade real refugee intake, not to inflate it. Assuming that you just misunderstand it in good fate and not doing intentional misinformation, lets put it again in clear and simple words.
1. Main international body handling global refugee issue is UNHCR, which uses international donations to aid millions of refugees hosted in refugee camps worldwide, till situation in their homes improves so they can return. Australian govt donations rank on 9th place and private on 3 place in the world. Very simple statistic, uniform across all countries, donors get ranked based on their contributions, period.
2. UNHCR also promotes permanent refugee relocation program for refugees to whom there is little hope to ever return home. This is second most important goal of UNHCR, not some small specific program as you put it! Few countries volunteer to take these people, and Australia is 3rd in the world by number of annual refugee intake. Again, simple stat with uniform criteria, countries ranked by number of refugees they annually take in for resettlement, period.
Now these two stats are too good to be used or even noticed by “refugee advocates”.
Lets see the third stat, so favored by “refugee advocates”. Number of hosted refugees. Here, criteria is not the same, or in simple words, we don’t compare apples with apples.
E.g number one country in the list – Pakistan. There is no special government naturalization programs or aid for refugees in Pakistan. Pakistan heavily relies on international support for refugee aid and we already know where it mostly comes from. The hosted refugee number counts for refugees accumulated in Pakistan from neighboring Afghanistan over many years, even decades, hence it is over 3 mil.
In Australia on the other hand, there are government programs for naturalization and all kinds of support of hosted refugees. On average within two years of getting refugee status, refugees get naturalized as permanent residents, they still entitled to welfare and all other benefits, but they drop from hosted refugee statistics, because they are Australians now. For that reason number of hosted refugees in Australia is so ridiculously small, 21805, which roughly corresponds to two year refugee intake.
To summarize, while for other countries in the list, hosted refugee numbers are accumulated for many years, for Australia it is 2 yrs wide sliding window.
This stat again, shows Australia in positive light, as a country in which refugees don’t stay as refugees for too long and get quickly naturalized.
Not for “refugee advocates” though, they deliberately manipulate this statistic to shamelessly misinform public that Australian contribution to global refugee issue is miniscule COMPARING TO OTHER COUNTRIES.
Finally government playing with numbers. Yes it does, to avoid public backlash over huge numbers, by hiding refugee migrants in different categories, biggest being family reunion. Most of fake refugees coming by boat are young males, with IDs thrown overboard and fake sad stories, over 90% of them get refugee status. Even notorious smugglers and drug trafficers can easily get through “thorough” checks by Australian security, Captain Emad story is very indicative of that.
Once these “refugees” get naturalized, they become proud aussies, and start to pull their extensive families over to Australia, to join their welfare paradise. Off course, all these people come under family reunion category, not refugee. That’s why family reunion quotas are usually 6 times bigger that humanitarian visa quotas, those folks have big families, e.g. this year family category intake quota is almost 60.000.
LikeLike
Your thoughts are noted. Thank you for your contribution.
I do not agree with you, but you do not agree with me. It will ever be.
LikeLike
Well said Ali Noname.
One fact is that asylum seekers are simply choosing other destinations before Australia. Therefore places such as Europe have higher intakes than us simply because of distance. Of course the refugee advocates perhaps would like the Australian taxpayers to fund commercial airlines to ferry them over here.
LikeLike
Michael, no offense, but you are typical victim of relentless leftist propaganda machine. Australia DOES admit more refugees than ANY European country and yes, we DO fly lot of them in from camps all over the world on commercial airlines. We actually take more refugees than any other country except US. But thanks to Aust. govt. misleading statistics, we appear below Canada, on third place, even though just our direct intake is twice as much as Canada. The reason is, if refugees taken in directly from their home countries, they are granted refugee visa and appear in refugee statistics, last year total 6000 refugees were admitted this way. If refugees are taken from shelter countries, they are granted humanitarian protection visa, same to refugee in everything but its name, they have all benefits of refugees in Australia, but don’t appear in refugee intake stats. For example, if Somalian refugee is relocated from camp in Somalia, s/he is counted as refugee. If same refugee relocated from camp in Kenya, s/he is not counted as refugee. Interesting, isn’t it? Thanks to this statistical trick by Aust. govt., more than 7000 effective refugees relocated under humanitarian visa last year, don’t appear in UNHCR statistics, misrepresenting our effective intake of 13700 as 6000.
LikeLike
I think you may be misunderstanding my views on this Ali Noname. I agree with you. Australia plays an enormous role in assisting those in desperate need. Those crying out loud that we’re not doing enough are usually very selective in the stats and information they quote. They prefer to focus on stats that have been manipulated in favour of their cause.
Im aware we fly in lots of refugees and thats all fine because theyve come though via the correct processes. What i was saying is that some of these do gooders with rose coloured glasses would be overjoyed at the thought of us flying anyone and everyone who claimed to be persecuted in their own country.
A point i’ll make also is that i was living in a third world country and heard about the lifestyle and wealth available here, I’d try claiming refugee status too. That wouldn’t necessarily mean i was a legitimate refugee though. But i wouldnt have anything to lose by trying.
LikeLike
A point i’ll make also is that (IF) i was living in a third world country and heard about the lifestyle and wealth available here, I’d try claiming refugee status too. That wouldn’t necessarily mean i was a legitimate refugee though. But i wouldnt have anything to lose by trying.
LikeLike
Sorry for misunderstanding, got it. Yes, the policy of letting everyone in, proposed by “refugee advocate” groups is nothing less than insane. Unfortunately effectively it is already a reality, thousands of boat arrivals every month, and numbers keep growing, immigration security screening turned into farce, all they can do is just stamp refugee visas to everyone claiming to be one. Democracy doesn’t work, Australian people were never asked if we accept it, instead of having debate BEFORE letting it happen, we can only helplessly watch it already happening, under constant whinging by interest groups that we still not doing nearly enough. Even genuine refugees from Chris Bowens own constituency now pressing him to stop this madness because boat invaders harm real cause of refugee support.
LikeLike
[…] until the other day. The following comment arrived on my article about Australia’s Refugee Intake Budget for 2012. Rather off-topic for the article, I thought. Sadly, the IP address is clearly Australian. Of […]
LikeLike
http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/f/myth-long.php
Refugees are CHOOSING OTHER destinations and therefore the number of applications to australia is lower. This goes someway to explaining why u think australia isnt doing its fair share. Its simply a matter of logistics. They cant get here as easily. So with the lower numbers currently seeking to come here, and with the rejection of some applicants that are disapproved, all the do-gooders throw a tantrum and blame the govt. Theres already a case of one refugee being a people smuggler and assisting others to come into the country the same way he did. He’s apparently a business owner in his home country but a trolley pusher here. Of course…..it remains to be seen as to what the facts are, given its a media story, but we’ll see.
Then there was the refugee who was tried in sydney over the planned terrorist attack. It IS NECESSARY to properly screen people that are coming through the back door and wanting to stay. SOME simply wont qualify for refugee status. Theres no use pretending theyre all angels.
LikeLike
There is no “back door”. Whatever you may have been fed by the media, you need to be aware of the facts. I repeat: there is no back door. The UN convention is perfectly clear.
That is a completely different question to those who may slip through the cracks of any system. I assure you it happens both ways – some get through that shouldn’t and we reject some that are returned to their homeland and subsequently killed. Personally, I would rather let the doubtful ones through rather than send them to their death. What would you prefer?
As for the media story, there will be a few embarrassed people if it turns out they were wrong, OR they totally destroyed an AFP operation to catch more players in the operation. I am not sure it ws an entirely responsible piece of journalism under the circumstances, as they are possibly lives at stake.
Of course lower numbers choose to come here – we are a damn long way away from everywhere else! That stands to reason!
That fact is, per head of our population, we take a very small number of the overall global numbers needing a safe haven compared with several other nations, as I have stated above.
LikeLike
I dont understand why in ur position ur not familiar with that term. The back door is on a boat, unexpectedly and without invitation, arriving on our shores. Surely u knew that? I note ur rose coloured view of the world, but im a realist. If my family had a franchised mcdonalds i’d be here flogging the health benefits of eating mcdonalds. Uve married a refugee.
LikeLike
And ur quick to judge those countries as guilty, yet they didnt set fire to paris, or go berserk in London.
LikeLike
I do not believe I judged any coutnry as guilty of anything, I merely disagreed that multiculturism cannot work and suggested a method of improving the relationships.
LikeLike
Check another of the UNHCR,s pages at
Click to access 090619-Global-Trends.pdf
You’ll see another contradiction of both the govt’s figures and urs quoted from a different UNHCR page. Each set of stats contains so many variables.
LikeLike
You have to ensure you are comparing apples with apples. Many statistical tables actually present statistics about related but different data.
LikeLike
Remember? We can use stats to move the moon and create whatever report we wish. I bet they have an angle… 😦
LikeLike
Oh, the angle is to sound SO much more humanitarian than we really are, of course. I’m not picking on the party in power – both are as bad as each other over this!
LikeLike
😆
LikeLike
So how many are u guys taking into ur home?
LikeLike
You might have missed the part that my home is full as I married an asylum seeker with four children. Just don’t have a spare inch in our small home – but I certainly would if we could. When we move, we will reassess depending on space availability.
LikeLike
I cant find that part anywhere….but in any case let us know when u do bring them into ur home. I wanna be clear on my views of refugees. A refugee is someone who flees their homeland out of fear of persecution and/or the very real threat of harm. An ECONOMIC refugee is someone who pretends to be a real refugee because they know they can improve their life here. I’m all in favour of bringng in real refugees, but not the economic ones. The govt has a hell of a job differentiating. Its not easy to validate and not easy to disprove. But if we’re not careul, we could be overwhelmed by boatloads of people just wanting a piece of our pie.
LikeLike
Michael, this goes to the heart of exactly what I was saying about your research and knowledge of the topic. If you cannot see very clearly from this web site that I married an asylum seeker, you are cetainly not demonstrating an ability to research anything to an appropriate depth, as I mentioned in my earlier comment.
I am sorry to correct you, but an asylum seeker flees their homeland out of fear of persecution and that person may be accepted as a refugee by a second or subsequent country.
I am very glad to hear you are in favour of bringing in real refugees and I agree with you that differentiating between economic refugees and those in fear of persecution can be difficult. However, the humanitarian approach is to err on the side of caution, not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Our chances of being overwhelmed by boat people is really not a possibility. Please do look at the facts from the various links in the article above. The numbers are miniscule compared with other avenues. You sound as if you are one of those affected by moral panic, often driven by the media. Please refer to https://teamoyeniyi.com/2012/05/06/unbalanced-article-fuels-moral-panic/ for details on moral panic.
Finally – why are you not prepared to share your piece of the pie?
LikeLike
“I am sorry to correct you, but an asylum seeker flees their homeland out of fear of persecution and that person may be accepted as a refugee by a second or subsequent country.”
Yes i know….i shortened it. But the point remains. I dont know what it is with do-gooders and their habit of trying to appear more intelligent than those who dont agree with them. Of course i am aware that u married a refugee. Did u think ur web page failed u in some way? I dont agree we should err on the side of caution. Those with rose coloured glasses may wish to but i think every nation has a right to peace and security. U blame the french and english govt’s for the rampages and cities burning. Maybe we should all group together and burn down the city of melbourne since a lot of people here are struggling under the current economic conditions. Its the govt’s fault after all.
LikeLike
Hang on – you just clearly stated you missed it, now you say you know? You are confusing me! But I’ll let that slide. It is too late at night for me to debate.
I think we need to be careful to not confuse economics with the issue of asylum seekers. They are two different issues.
The UK is in a disastrous state economically with a horrendous unemployment rate, especially amongst the younger age brackets.
I am sorry Michael, but I have a family who needs my attention, so I will have to stop commenting at this time!
LikeLike
Where did i state that i missed it? The closest i can find to that in my comments is where i said i couldnt find the part about U not having any room for more in ur home. Yes i saw u are married and have taken in the four children, but given that i dont know the size lf ur home or homes, i cannot have known u couldnt take in any more refugees.
LikeLike
Crazy stats.
LikeLike
My thoughts exactly. The media release should have been a LOT clearer about exactly what race we were coming third in. It wasn’t the big race, just a little one.
LikeLike
They’re specifically talking about the UN Resettlement program. For figures, see page 3 of the document at http://www.unhcr.org/4ac0873d6.html
The Australian government has a habit of quoting their third place in these figures, because it lets them pat themselves on the back while not actually helping many refugees.
LikeLike
Thank you Steve! 🙂 We finally have a “source”! I contend the wording of the media release is particularly misleading to the “average Australian”! The resettlement programme is specific: “UNHCR’s resettlement activities involve the selection and transfer of refugees from a State in which they have sought protection to a third Statr that has agreed to admit them – as refugees – with permanent residence status.” A very specific small group of people.
As stated in that report: “… the number of resettlement places offered by resettlement States for UNHCR resettlement submissions did not see any significant increase and stood at approximately 80,000 in 2010. UNHCR estimates the global resettlement needs at approximately 800,000 persons, including populations where resettlement is envisaged over a period of several years. Resettlement needs therefore continued to outpace available resettlement places by a factor of 10 to 1.
Thank you for providing an plausible explanation for the source of the assertions. I think my “spin” question is now answered.
LikeLike
I understood it very clearly. While the UN states the need for 800,000 plus places, the total number of placements available from the global community was 88,000. You’re suggesting that Australia step up and make up the difference where others wont?
I understand ur bias given uve entered into a relationship with a refugee, and l sincerely wish u well in that. He’s probably a good man. I deal on a daily basis with many refugees and most are so good natured i cant do enough for them. That said, there are certainly those who despise me for my skin colour and religion and have told me so. I wanna know how they got through the net. Recently a Somalian woman told me that because i am Christian (how did she know anyway?), my judgement day would come and it wouldnt be good because im not a muslim. Great assimilation.
As for ur claim that im not demonstrating an in depth understanding, well i can post websites (as i have) of what the UNHCR says about our significant contribution to the cause.
LikeLike
I am certainly not suggesting Australia make up the difference! That would be impractical. However, there is no denying we take less than we realistically could – of the overall problem, not the UN resettlement program which is a small part only of the global problem.
I think the Somalian woman is wrong and definitely is not assimilating well. I am not convinced we provide suitable or enough assimilation support. Personally, as an atheist, I agree with a tweet I saw the other day saying something along the lines of all these people killing each other in an argument over what was going to happen to them when they die. Kind of silly, really. 🙂 I respect a persons right to believe as they see fit, provided they don’t go around forcing it on others. Next time you see her, point out to her that both religions believe in the same god so how can she explain the same god speaking to many apostles?
Thank you, my husband is a good man. Also one of the ones who fell through the cracks the wrong way.
I do try not to be biased. I have always had an interest in this field, it was how I met my husband, not the other way around, but I don’t see why I should drop my personal interest just because I married an asylum seeker – that would be a little silly.
I am sure the UN says wonderful things about our contribution, but they also strongly criticise our mandatory detention.
I am glad you like most refugees. I like most too – but I am not blind to the fact some do not assimilate well. In many cases there are reasons for that if you look into their background and they need additional support. Some have been raised in camps and never led a normal life at all. How can they adjust overnight to a western society? There is not download into their brain given with the protection visa. We need to look at this whole area a little more closely.
LikeLike
Im aware that u met ur husband through ur involvement in this cause. Im also aware that peoples behaviours are shaped by their past but what ur proposing is that we increase our intake (how? they cant get here). Then u also want to allocate an already overburdened system to provide services required to completely reprogram them. Unfortunately, as a realist, i can tell u that the majority are not prepared for the cost. Particularly when there is an element of the refugee groups that despise us and our way of life. Particularly when for instance, in Maribyrnong shopping centre, groups of somalian youths roam freely, belting kids and stealing their mobile phones and other items, while security are powerless to stop them. Theyve only got to claim they were called ‘black bastards’ or something and the shit hits the fan. Or it goes viral on a youtube rant and australia gets branded as racist again. Security dont want any part of it. My job gives me a lot of contact in this kind of thing. Im not spruiking media hype or heresay.
LikeLike
In 2008 there were 88,000 refugees resettled GLOBALLY. If Australia resettled over 11,000 of them then thats a pretty good effort. U cant then water that down with the minimal numbers that come through our back doors. Its a choice made by asylum seekers. The largest number of asylum seekers choose other countries. EVERY country has its rates of rejection also, though because our intake appears low, any applicants rejected are seen by the blind do-gooders as victims.
LikeLike
Michael, if you research appropriately, you will find the UN states it needs at least 800,00o places annually.
Secondly, the formal UN resettlement program is a mere drop in the ocean of the real global problem, which is what I was referring to.
The largest number of asylum seekers go where they can get to out of necessity. You are not demonstrating a very in-depth understanding of the global problem. I do not know who you are or what your connection to the issue is, but I suggest you do a lot more in-depth research and develop a more comprehensive understanding of the global issues.
LikeLike
I think they can count on most people not to go and look at the statistics like you did Robyn.
The Government likes to brag about their good deeds, they certainly do their bit, but according to those statistics, they aren´t in third place, far from it! Your post should be printed in the national newspapers as a reply to that original article.
LikeLike
I was stunned! I mean, I am not basically against the budget, but the fact we take such a small number of refugees is well known and widely published – so how this got to press astounds me.
At least I’m being fair, since Sunday I have given both the left AND the right a poke! 😆
Feel free to share this far and wide!
LikeLike
Perhaps the Govt can see the future? The poms dont believe multiculturalism has worked there……nor do the french. We on the other hand, have a different balance in the demographics of our immigrants/refugees and with it we get a different mix of behaviours. The govt are probably quite mindful of this.
LikeLike
As for crystal balls, sadly I don’t believe in them.
Multiculturalism can work provided there is cultural intelligence by all concerned. Sadly lacking in both Franch and England as the recent jail term in England so clearly demonstrated.
LikeLike
How much time have u spent in either of those places? U should try walking the backstreets of Sheffield just to give an example of what racism means. Whites arent welcome.
LikeLike