skippy.
|
Soren wrote on Dec 20 th, 2010 at 3:40pm: skippy. wrote on Dec 20 th, 2010 at 3:28pm: Soren wrote on Dec 20 th, 2010 at 3:21pm: skippy. wrote on Dec 20 th, 2010 at 3:13pm: Why doesn't Australia take its "fair share" of these people, considering our actions in invading their countries are one of the major reasons they need to flee their homes. There were a lot even before the shooting started in October 2001 in Afghanista and March 2003 in Iraq. Here's the graph from the Parliament House library: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/BoatArrivals_002.gif and your point? we take way less than our fair share compered to Europe and the USA or even Canada, why? We are the 6th richest nation in the world, per capita,according to the international monetary fund, but come in at 77th in terms of refugees per gross domestic product per capita. In real terms, this is 1.1 refugee per 1000 inhabitants and 0.6 refugees per GDP per capita. ANd my point? We do not have a 'fair share' of illegal arrivals, we do not have to take any. They are not here as a conseqence of AUstralia's participation in the wars. We have not invaded Sri Lanka or Iran but half the dead off Christmas Island were Iranians. There is no link between being a rich nation and being a destination for boats. Kuwait, Singapore, Brunai, Japan, the UAE are not taking refugees even though they are richer than us. International Monetary Fund (2010)[1] World Bank (2009)[2] CIA World Factbook[3] Rank Country US$ 1 Luxembourg 104,390 2 Norway 84,543 3 Qatar[4] 74,422 4 Switzerland 67,074 5 Denmark 55,113 6 Australia 54,869 7 Sweden 47,667 Wrong again ,swallow, none of those countries are richer than Aus per capita.Not according to the international monetary fund.
|