Ken, do you really expect to be taken as a rational adult when you employ idiotic dog-whistles like 'bleeding heart'.

If, as you claim, you want a rational, evidence-based discussion - which I rather think Sandy provided - you might like to consider behaving rationally yourself, instead of resorting to school-yard name-calling.

Oh, and you could try offering some actual evidence, which the original article provides i nspades.

Please answer the questions and do not get so emotional, then I will take you seriously as an adult.

Where do you draw the line on numbers and face up to the fact that at some point we are taking no more?
What is the number that you would recommend to the Australian people we should take annually?
When the number waiting exceed that number, as it will in the near future, how do we say "No more!"

The article did not answer these simple questions at all!

Wow! You have a magic machine for measuring emotion over the internet! When are you going to patent it and make your fortune?

And I never offered to answer your questions - merely suggested that you might pose them more calmly and courteously.

It is meaningless to try to provide precise, fixed 'numbers' in a case like this and refusing to fall into such a fallacy is not to evade the issue. Numbers have to be decided year-by-year as the situation evolves. Sandy's article does, however, suggest that we could 'substantially' increase the numbers and references to the 1700,000 arrivals in 1952 (when our population was far smaller) in comparison with numbers since then that have not been higher than 22,000. This gives a broad, sensible indication of the kinds of numbers that might reasonably be considered.

Obviously nobody is suggesting a blank-cheque or open-door approach - merely to include a substantial increase in numbers accepted as part of a total process of working with our regional neighbours and exploring better ways of managing what is always going to be a difficult problem - one that will require never-ending re-thinking and adjusting of numbers, policies and systems.

So you would advocate anything between 22,000 and 170,000 per annum?
What is a likely "sensible number" in your or Sandy's view?
The world's refugee population is in the hundreds of thousands and always will be. Lets face it, there is always a war somewhere, there is always persecution somewhere. It will always be reasonably easy to make a case to come here. As we increase the number we accept, the more demand we will create to choose Australia as a destination and the greater the pressure to increase our intake.
So I ask again what is the number (please a lot tighter than between 22k and 170k) and having given this number, what is the quantified business case justifying it? You cannot strongly advocate for such increases and not be mindful of the cost to other Australians.

Ah a "quantified business case" ... that how these things should be decided is it?

There is a wealth of information on the economic function of immigration in stabilising and expanding the Australian economy ... I guess you'd regard that as a Good Thing". So here you are, your "business case": http://www.pc.gov.au/projects/study/migration-population/docs/finalreport

The Productivity Commission - at the direction of one Peter Costello and Judith Sloan at the time, demonstrates quite clearly that increased immigration directly enhances our economic performance to the tune of $400 a head.

And as history shows us constantly - refugees make the best, most productive and entrepreneurial citizens. Unlike many of those who come as "economic migrants" with expectations and a sense of entitlement.

Now how did you come to arrive here Ken?

Ken, seeing you're fascinated by precise numbers, you might like to note that th enumber of refugees in the world is actually in the millions, rather than 'hundreds of thousands' as you suggest. I believe the UNHCR suggests a figure around 7 milion.

As I've already stated, it is spurious, pointless an dmeaningless to try to nail down some fixed number - particularly as numbers will need to be flexible to balance need with capacity. But, as a broad estimate I have indeed suggested that that number might be in the 22 - 170,000 range.

However, if you feel the need for some absurd number so you can construct some sort of empty attack, what say we pick 122,671. It's about as good an arbitrary number as any. Have fun crunching that through some kind of foolish analysis that will prove nothing, despite you're giving it the risible title of a 'quantified business case'.

And there's no particular reason to believe that it is axiomatic that accepting more will automaticaly raise the demand. A sane refugee policy is much more than numbers - it's about proper assessment and sensible cooperation with our regional neighbours - that's how we manage the refugee situatiomn in a way that is actually useful and effective.

G'day Felix,

Hate to be the bearer of bad tidings but according to that UNHCR 2011 report, in 2011 alone there were an EXTRA 4.3 million added to the number of displaced persons - 800,000 fleeing their countries while 3.5 million were displaced within their own countries.

To paraphrase a bit of the report: Of the world's displaced people - some 25.9 million - 15.4 million were internally displaced persons, while 10.5 million were refugees - all under the protection of, or receiving assistance from, the UN. That is a 700,000 increase over 2010.

So 10.5 million and counting Felix. And that's the official ones.

These damn regional wars and progroms are getting worse, affecting more people and erupting all over the place... but the biggie is Afghanistan ... which is more than understandable combining a regional war, with religious programs, deep corruption and political failure and - what seems from the ground - a global invasion. Anyone would run away from that.

Peter

The study you cite refers to skilled migrants not unskilled arrivals which is the typical profile of the Afghans, Pakistanis and Sri Lankans. Not relevant at all.

My ancestors came here as second class passengers courtesy of the British. My wife's parents are of Russian descent and came here to escape the communist regime in Russia and after that China. They waited for 2 years in a Hong Kong internment camp before being accepted. My father in law had to repay the cost of his family's repatriation but as a skilled refugee he was able to do so, and he has contributed his $400 per head ever since.

But this is the point. The people seeking seeking asylum are not skilled in the main. They will, in the main not contribute the $400/ head the study you cite. My question on a "business case" still stands. What is the cost economically and socially of these people who have not been selected as my father in law was. And what of the people like him who did the right thing and waited their turn. They are entitled to feel aggrieved.
According to you, they are no great loss because they have "expectations and a sense of entitlement".

A business case is not the only way these things should be decided, but ultimately it gets down to this as the demand for spots increases over time and your other post detailing the large number of displaced persons proves that this will be an ongoing thing, and has always been. We are not a bottomless pit Peter, the majority of posts here choose to ignore the economic and social cost side of this discussion.

I wonder why it is that so many people think we can set a limit on humanitarian visas.

Everyone has the right to seek asylum from persecution, no-one has the right to resettlement which is nothing to do with protection or the refugee convention, is not run by the UNHCR as often claimed and is an expensive hoax for the few.

Of course, Marilyn, Australia could afford to do more if it didn't have so many hypochriandriacs and malingerers on the public teat. End these unnecessary pensions, perhaps. Do you agree?

Good to see that this "new charity" can also begin at home Phillip... I just wonder what sort of country we would have inhabited with another 10 years of John Howard and the encouragement of this heartless selfishness.

Where is Charles Dickens when you need him?

Yet we still have blow-ins - economic migrants who came here to get a better life - now telling us who should and should not be allowed in.

How do you come to be in Australia Phillip?

Now I find myself wondering Phil why we should not be applying this Norman Lindsay notion to your good self? Why you? What have you done to earn membership in this exclusive little club you'd like to set up? Who are you to say who should get to join?

Course I have fences. There are rabbits and foxes all over the place up here. But we are talking about people Phillip - not pests and feral animals... men women and children who have been getting kicked around back home and now by us. So I'm not sure what your point might be.

So you are suggested fencing the coastline? Sending the boats back? Shutting down international airports? Should we be shelling the boats if they come back? And you would volunteer to undertake this sort of work yourself, Phillip?

Now answer me regarding the means by which you find yourself here in this country telling us who should be allowed in.

Don't try to persuade Philip, Peter. he's one of those IT people who's missing something, doesn't have a heart. Probably had it replaced by a sump pump and a pocket calculator.
If he saw starving homeless people on his doorstep he'd just shoo them off like a couple of foxes. Or maybe get his calculator out to see if his budget could afford to give them half a biscuit each.

Military age yound males well fed designer clothes paying multiples of national income and with laptops
Apparently a sailor recently was admonished by an asylum-seeker who wanted more care taken with his bag because it contained a laptop

Yep - no question about it - with facts like this we should have you stationed up there Phillip with a howitzer blowing these swarthy rich devils to oblivion.

Seriously Phillip this is a difficult and huge problem - not for us but for the world, particularly the poorer parts of the world that a carrying the heavy weight of human misery. The question is how can we help.

It will not be solved by pretending it's not happening, by sending folks back where they came from or by grabbing onto any anecdote, rumour or fabrication that serves our self-interested and selfish outlook.

To illustrate, you are suggesting that even if this unknown arrival had a laptop he is not a refugee. That is not correct. Regardless of what was in his bag, his claims to be fleeing persecution and brutality will be assessed professionally and he will have the right to put a case. But if he was half rich or half smart he would have arrived on a plane like most of our asylum seekers do.

How would you actually solve this problem Phil? Razor wire and howitzers? Prisons? Nauru?

What does that have to do with a few thousand refugees? Fair dinkum in a country this rich what is it you are whinging about.

No Phillip, what you are missing is that being a refugee has little to do with poverty - it has to do with fear and persecution.

Say for example a rabid bunch of luddites seized power in Canberra and began wiping out every IT teacher in arm's reach, killing their kids and burning down their houses. Now some of them might get themselves into a tinny and head off to New Zealand only to be met by some bloke saying that they are too well dressed, too young, or that they have laptops in their luggage.

The fact is Phil that needing a safe place is not related to poverty - it is a consequence of violence and discrimination.

All the better if a refugee arrives being literate enough to be able to use a laptop I reckon. If that person is assessed as meeting the criteria for a successful application for asylum then we have the makings of an excellent resident who will be up on their feet an making a contribution to Australian life in no time. Much harder if they are illiterate and have never seen a computer at all.

Does that help?

We are not in Ceylon (Sri Lanka). Let us send those Tamils and other Indians back to where they come from or back to India. there are 72.2 million Tamils in India and 1.3 billion Indians in India. Returning them back to where they feel home is humanitarian
.

And I bet the muslim countries we have bombed to bits would say that we should be banned.

Face it sunshine, you are a nasty little bigot.