That does not change the bottom line, which shows that in every year net migration has a positive outcome.
That's on the basis GSMs stay employed (see The Age link above) and our intake of humanitarians and refugees doesn't increase (which bleeding hearts aggressively petition to increase with scant regard for capacity to assimilate).
And your major premise is, no matter what strife the world's Muslims get up to, and self create a blow out in global refugee numbers, Australia is bound by law to take in not just 11,000pa, but 50,000, 100,000, 500,000, 1,000,000.
The problem people like me have with people like you is your unblinking support of dill laws that deny the rights of Aussies to protect their std of living.....And the higher the number of migrants coming in under family parents and humanitarian/refugees visas, the more taxpayer money gets diverted from upholding our std of living......but anyone who talks about putting a ceiling on this stuff gets branded a racist by self righteous and emotionally labile guilt industry goons, like David Marr. The Marrs of the world wouldn't have a clue why net foreign liabilities are going up.....they just presume because they are sitting on easy street, Australia is a rich country.
The other aspect which you just don't get is that the contribution of refugees is quite dissimilar to other categories due to their lower average age. Accordingly, longer run data for the cohort would likely show the average adult refugee (at time of entry) to have made a net positive contribution.
The longer any data run is, the more likely a positive net contribution, in nominal terms. But subject that to net present value consideration of opportunity cost, and you get a different story. The earlier capital is invested in net surplus operations, the greater the compounding multiplier effect.
Not surprisingly, it takes a long time for any child (migrant or otherwise) to reach working age, and their comparatively large number skew the data for the early years.