Let us define what a refugee is
before we become refugees in our own country

 

The UN isn’t the solution, it’s the problem

Who says that all illegal migrants are genuine refugees, or more euphemistically, asylum seekers? Answer: the United Nations, the very organisation that gives support the countries that create refugees. Then they have the temerity to pressure us to accept them all.
And who are the United Nations? Most of them are the antithesis of democracy, such as Mugabi of Zimbabwe, Gadaffi of Libya, Castro of Cuba, Than Shwe of Burma, Ratnasiri Wickremanayake of Sri Lanka and fifty more of their kind, who get free accommodation the US to legitimise their abuse of power, and be on equal terms with the Unites States, Japan and Europe without contributing a cent.

They get rid of people who are opposed to them, or who come from different tribes from that of the present government, or those people they regard as being criminals. In the meantime, the part of the United Nations who do all the real and good work, the Trusteeship Council and the Security Council, by not even telling them that they may be a wee bit naughty, actually encourages Mugabi and the likes to kill or eject their unwanted, then preach to us of how inhumane we are for not letting their unwanted come here.

Instead of welcoming illegal migrants to our different culture, we should be demanding that the despots stop their persecution of their own people. Our well-meaning but unrealistic philanthropists think that people from all cultures think like we do, and have the same values as us, and they think that the illegal migrants will not create problems for our culture like they caused for the rulers of their own countries.

So, instead of them telling us what a refugee is, let us define them, and let us decide if Australia can sustain a population of over twenty million, before the 20 million of us here become refugees in our own country.

The maths of refugeeism

Julia Gillard is right on one thing. There is a serious lack of understanding of basic mathematics by Australians, but it's not in the schools, it's with the Ministry for Immigration & Citizenship, with Chris Evans. The maths goes something like this.

The world population of humans is over seven billion, which is about six billion more than our little Earth can sustain without wiping out all other species of animals.

Of this seven billion humans, at least five billion live in countries where there are conditions that meet the criterion for genuine refugeeship, that is, where there is a regime where people have a genuine fear for their lives, from Indonesia, China, Sri Lanka, all middle-East and African countries and most South American countries.

About half of the populations of these countries face death under their governments and the other half face death if the alternative government gets into power. That adds up to five billion people world wide who can claim to be "genuine refugees". Where can they go? There are only a seven countries where foreign groups are not in fear of their lives, Europe, USA, Japan, Russia, Canada, Australia and New Zealand. Problem is that Japan and Russia are maths savvy, and so, are well aware of the number-of-refugees problem, and have closed their doors. Europe and the USA are closing their doors too. That leaves Canada, Australia and New Zealand to accept those five billion "genuine refugees".

If Canada takes in half of them, that leaves 2.5, billion refugees for New Zealand and us. Being a caring and sharing person, I'm sure John Key who seems to have inherited the politicians' disease of maths deficiency, would happily share the load and take in, say, a mere 100 million which would increase New Zealand's population to polyglottery of 103 million and neatly solve the Maori "problem".

Which leaves Australia with a more-manageable number of 2.499 billion "refugees" for us to accommodate.

Since there are about 10 million houses in Australia, that would mean that each house would have to accommodate 250 refugees in each house. Add on four of us Australians, that makes 254 which means about 83 in each of the three bedrooms. Frankly, we wouldn't like that, nor would any of our friends, because we are not maths deficient like Mr Rudd's mob. Nor would our rellies in Perth or the other four cities readily put out the welcome mat for them. And an Aboriginal mia mia would be stretching to accommodate three, let alone 83!

So the only solution would seem to be to accommodate them in Canberra, after all it's their idea. But don't tell Canberrans that they'll have to share each bedroom with 8330 more people. The maths of it is, of the 93,000 homes in Canberra, there would probably be 300,000 bedrooms to be divided amongst the 2.499 billion genuine "refugees".

Now, some of my good mathematician friends argue that my calculations are exaggerated, that my figures are much less, as much as 50%. If they are right, Canberrans will be relieved to know that they will only have to share their bedroom with only 4165 "refugees".