And others do far less than us.
Our world population is around 1/3rd of 1%, and that pretty much corresponds with the world % of refugees we accept.
countries take in far
less than us? Australia ranks 46th
on the global ladder of nations hosting refugees and asylum seekers, are there even 46 countries classified as "first world"? Even if there are some that accept less, they'd be heavily outweighed by those who accept more.
Your point on the correspondence between our population and the amount of refugees we accept is completely arbitrary and meaningless. Poor countries hold 80% of the world's refugees, with 60% in just 10 countries. That is astoundingly out of proportion, and does not come close to
'corresponding with their percentage of the World's population'. Really, it's the extremely wealthy countries such as Australia that should have the most refugees. They deserve the social freedoms, economic opportunities and political stability we're lucky to already have, and we're more than able to give it to them at very little cost to us.
If you don't like accepting refugees, or you view Australia's current intake levels are fair, that's your opinion to hold, but don't try and justify it or make it seem more reasonable with statistics. That view is not supported by any of the statistics. By no measure is Australia in line with its peers on this issue.
Edited by kevizz, 04 July 2011 - 04:43 PM.