Questioning immigration is not racism

At Domainfax, Peter Hartcher writes a shocker today:

The political consensus in favour of immigration has collapsed in most of the developed world.

Hostility to immigrants is now the great motive force animating politics in Europe and the US.

It’s on stark display now in the countries to which Australia has typically looked for leadership and for example, American and Britain. This is a troubling omen for Australia.

We do not have the problems of the US and Britain. But Australia commonly imports words, ideas and political trends from these countries. And often we absorb them uncritically. It would be a dire mistake for Australia to import the anger, fear and hatred that’s now running amok among our civilisational cousins.

…As Australia’s Race Discrimination Commissioner, Tim Soutphommasane, says: “We do need to state the case for immigration and cultural diversity, as there’ll always be political elements seeking to exploit fears and anxieties.

“But a well-ordered immigration program is good for Australia,” he tells me. “It supports our economy, and it reinvigorates our society. We have every reason to be proud of our multiculturalism. Our experience has been very different from Europe, and we must not draw the wrong lessons from what is happening there.” Or the US.

Australia is a multicultural society and an immigrant nation. These are not choices. Our only choice is whether we make a success of it.

Let’s get a few things straight first. I have spent my entire adult life campaigning for both successful multi-culturalism, of which I am very proud, and Australian integration with Asia. Indeed I worked with Peter Hartcher on The Diplomat for nigh on a decade, which explicitly held these goals. But Peter’s comment today is not the solution, it is the problem.

A “well-ordered immigration program” needs to be socially, economically and politically sustainable otherwise it will generate the kind of resentment on display in the northern hemisphere. The first pre-condition for each is to ensure buy-in by the polity and that requires both debate and “choices”. Wowserishness that shuts down both will only generate powerlessness, anger and a backlash.

So, first of all. Do not represent immigration as manifest destiny. It is a choice. One we should argue for and select.

Having established that support we then need to discuss what kind of immigration we want.

My own view is that I’d rather see the complete opposite of today wherein refugees are demonised and economic migrants are ushered in via a variety of questionable front doors where legality is in constant question. The moral imperative of assisting the persecuted plus the long benefits that they bring stand in far better stead with the Australia I grew up in than the lowly game of selling our souls to the rich of China, recently encapsulated by Warwick McKibbin:

Obsessed by weak commodity prices and volatility in global financial markets to the point of not thinking about the future?

Don’t be, advises top economist and former Reserve Bank of Australia board member Warwick McKibbin.

Australia is better placed than most countries to benefit from long-term global trends – such as population ageing, fiscal adjustments and the shift in economic clout from Europe to Asia, Professor McKibbin says.

…”If you have got something like a fixed asset in a country and you are globalising the entire world then location becomes a valuable asset.”

“Real estate on Sydney harbour for example is also from a national point of view attractive. But for foreign investors it’s also very attractive because there’s billions of dollars of wealth being generated in China.

“The middle class is expanding, and they’re going to want to buy things, environmental goods – they’re going to want to buy stuff which we actually have in abundance. But much of it is fixed assets so you can’t change the supply of it, and so therefore it’s value is likely to go up a lot.”

But it will also drive up the real exchange rate, hurting the competitiveness of trade-exposed industries such as tourism – currently enjoying good growth with a lower Aussie dollar – and manufacturing. A stronger dollar means Australian goods and services are more expensive for foreigners while competing foreign goods and services are cheaper for Australians.

And the Prime Minister:

From July 1, students aged six and above would be able to apply for student visas regardless of their country of citizenship – and their guardians can also apply for Guardian visas (subclass 580)

These visa-rule changes, which were announced during Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull’s visit to China in April, also mean non-residents can buy several new properties or one existing property…

Dave Platter, from the leading Chinese international-property portal Juwai.com said there has been a nearly 20 per cent jump in inquiries for properties in Australia since Mr Turnbull’s announcement…

Estate agents Vera and Geoffrey Wong have hosted an open home in Sydney’s Eastwood.

Most of their clients are either Chinese or South Korean investors, and Mr Wong says when they were choosing a property, there is no doubt their children’s education is considered most important.

He said buyers are planning purchases that cater for their children’s entire education.

“Schooling … that is – I can’t emphasise it enough – is one of the main factors,” he said.

“Our clients, I would say over 70 per cent, (are looking,) at schooling and the university afterwards.”

A well-ordered immigration program does not need underhanded entry points nor should it be crowding out the existing population from essential services. Yet that is where we are at in the major eastern capitals:

ScreenHunter_13326 Jun. 03 07.22

Property prices, junior age school congestion, falling university standards and a long list of other straining infrastructure is crowding out the living standards of the existing population.

That brings us to our third condition of a well-ordered immigration program. It needs to meet the needs and improve the lot of existing Australians and that will need to inform the size of the inflows. Australia is still running what is essentially a “Big Australia” agenda in the east yet there is no obvious reason why it should, no skill shortages, no lack of diversity, no economic dividend, no strategic imperative. Indeed, it is all the opposite with high underemployment, vibrant inner-cities, a grotesque lack of infrastructure investment and an approaching tipping point where economic integration with Asia will overwhelm traditional Western alliances.

It is not socially, economically or politically sustainable to erode the standards of living in the existing Australian population in this way. There may be an argument for it. That is, that not doing it will lead to an even larger fall in living standards but that argument must be made convincingly and I’m not sure it can be.

If it is not then eventually you will create the very anti-immigration pulse that you are seeking to avoid.

Houses and Holes
Latest posts by Houses and Holes (see all)

Comments

  1. The definition of immigration and cultural diversity is a form of cheap exploitable labor that undermines jobs and wage equality and the importation of cashed up foreigners to pump property markets with both limiting access to infrastructure and overwhelming health services.

    • As you imply, immigration is not useful at this time in Australia’s history, bskerr2.

      Immigration is, at this time in Australia’s history far too high.

      Immigration should be stopped today!

      I am not being a racist by saying that.

      With population growth limited to zero we can kick back and think about what level of population (and immigration) we want in Australia. Meanwhile, we will have the pleasure of watching real estate prices fall to rational and affordable levels and we will watch as government expenditure on infrastructure for new immigrants falls to near zero.

      Stopping immigration immediately is a good idea!

      Hopefully all Australians, including the reader, will speak about the need to stop immigration while we attempt to recover the good life in Australia.

      Peter Harcher is absolutely wrong when he writes:

      “But a well-ordered immigration program is good for Australia,” he tells me. “It supports our economy, and it reinvigorates our society.”

      High real estate prices, environmental damage and run down infrastructure are not good for Australia or the world.

      Immigration had a place in Australia during different times in the past but not now.

      It is time to reduce immigration to the stage where population growth becomes zero.

      • My problem is the underinvestment in networks. The most critical network being water. Yes, there are a few desalination plants now, however, we have made little inroads in irrigating this vast nation for the second most important network: food. Additionally, we’ve actively closed extensive rural rail networks and offloaded our food onto trucks, necessitating investment into road networks.

        How are we meant to support so many new people when our logistics don’t seem organised or ready?

        Those desalination plants were only built at the last minute under the real threat of running out. While we got lucky (or unlucky) and the rains did come, we don’t seem to have long term plans for infrastructure outside our cities or even any real support for our food production.

        How can we seriously consider this nation of drought and flood secure enough?

      • China has low immigration, but experienced an incredible housing bubble. Cheap debt drives house prices just as much as immigration does, if not more.

      • Fekname

        Your claim that China has had low immigration is just not right: the internal migration in China over the last three or so decades is the greatest movement of people ever, involving hundreds of millions of rural Chinese moving into urban areas. In percentage terms China’s urbanisation rate in that period was similar to that experienced in Russia in the decades after the USSR came into being, and the result was also similar as both the housing sectors and broader economies boomed.

        I don’t question your statement about cheap debt.

      • @triage
        Rural people are not the ones buying properties in china. First they are not allowed to. Second they cannot afford to. Third they cannot even afford to rent in these cities, so a lot of the apartments just sit empty and unrenovated.

      • Fekname: Are you saying that everyone in China and in Australia is adequately housed?

        The basic fact is that, say, 25,000,000 people require, say,12,500,000 homes in Australia.

        Further, if there are the same number of people as there are homes then everyone will have a home.

        There will, of course, be higher demand to live in some areas than others and greater density or travel infrastructure may be required for those areas.

        The location of housing has its problematics and variables but overall two people, say, require one house and when the demand is in balance with the supply then the housing problem is solved.

  2. Alternatively, you could say Australia is simply doing its bit in the grand economic scheme.
    In 1950 the World had 2.5 billion souls. Today it’s 7.4 billion; an increase factor of just shy of 3.
    1950 Australia? 8.2 million of you , multiply by 3 = 24.6 million. And you appear to be at 24.3, about right if all things are equal.

    • Sometimes the simplest explanations really are the best!

      I don’t think high immigration would be such an issue if it were to new cities being built expressly for the purpose. Why not another city midway between Sydney and Brisbane? Could grow to 3 million people and be nicer than any existing city we have. High speed rail linking the cities on the eastern seaboard. Could all be paid for with Australia Development bonds which would be a nice secure place to dump superannuation.

      Perth is a beautiful city, and getting cheaper everyday, while being in a better time zone for the core of Asia. Why not grow that?

      There are ways to make growth work. But it’s not about growth, it’s all rent seeking.

      • Cities exist where money encourages their existence. China has already tried to ‘plan’ cities, it didnt really pay off.

        Australia has one too- Canberra. It only works if the govt forces its departments to be based there. Even then it doesnt work great, because having guaranteed income sources means prices are constantly raised to gouge the government.

      • Matthew. Why would building another city just to house more consumers make Australia richer? Seriously, where is the economic benefit? How would it lift overall living standards?

        Australia mostly pays its way in the world by selling its fixed endowment of minerals. How would diluting this endowment among more consumers make Australia “wealthier”?

      • Those are good questions UE. But they were true when the population was 5 million, too.

        New cities wouldn’t make us automatically wealthier, but they would stop congestion, overcrowding and help manage environmental impact – compared to growing our existing cities.

        They could also offer the opportunity to move away from reliance on natural resources, simply due to scale of domestic demand. Of course, we’d have to change our economy to support manufacturing and such.

        Not arguing we should. Bit of a small Australian fan, actually. But if we are, we should do it better.

    • A useful way of thinking if all things remained in synchronization, Janet.

      Unfortunately the surface area of the earth has remained at 510 million square kilometers for some time.

      Australia’s land surface area has also remained relatively constant since 1788 while 55 animal species became extinct (Wikipedia).

      It is now time to reduce Australia’s population growth to zero and to reduce immigration accordingly.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        The ‘not enough space’ argument is a furphy.

        A quarter acre block for every household in the country is equivalent to approximately 1/8th of Tasmania.

        Even the ‘not enough resources’ argument is in many ways a furphy given the incredible levels of waste in contemporary society.

      • Putting everybody in one place without environmental or infrastructure support is not the answer, drsmithy.

        In fact, that is the problem!

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Putting everybody in one place without environmental or infrastructure support is not the answer, drsmithy.

        Didn’t say it was.

      • You were born long after deforestation. Humans have plenty of space, and plenty of food (as evidenced by farmers being generally poor/not very profitable). What they don’t have (and likely never will have) is good allocation of resources.

    • How about we get all those lost souls into alphabetical groups from A to Z.

      Then we could put all the R-souls in Canberra with the rest of them.

    • Seriously? Doinjg our bit?

      FFS. We’ll double our population to 50m and that’s a relief of 3 months global population growth.

    • The best thing about this comment is that it implies a sensible estimate of Austrlalia’s population in 2100 – about 33 million.

  3. Hartchers writes from the perspective of those who are still receiving dividend cheques from an Australian population ponzi / household and foreign debt bubble scheme that has not yet collapsed.

    When it does attitudes in Australia to migration will harden as people up the social / income ladder find the ‘dividend’ cheques getting smaller or stopping altogether.

    The situation in Europe is quite different simply because the debt /population ponzi game blew up years ago and they are still being driven into the ground with neo-liberal prescriptions of austerity and continued private banker control of who gets the benefits of money creation and for what – mainly asset inflation / wealth effect trickle down economics.

    It is sad to see the ugly and the angry but the fastest way of curing that is stop grinding the populations of Europe with a broken model of economics and monetary management.

    The effective control of the Public Money supply by the Private banks is the core of the problem as inherent in private bank control is the trickle down economics of asset inflation and the so called wealth effect. That is simply how money created by private banks gets out into the economy.

    It is inefficient, ineffective and inequitable.

    Hartcher is a good guy but needs to get his head around the broken neo-liberal economics and the power politics it generates that is at the core of the mess.

    When economies are run in the general public interest the general public are much less frightened and afraid and insecure.

    The Japanese have succumbed to the same broken economic thinking but perhaps they have been wise to limit social friction.

  4. “Dave Platter, from the leading Chinese international-property portal Juwai.com said there has been a nearly 20 per cent jump in inquiries for properties in Australia since Mr Turnbull’s announcement…”

    I made a throwaway comment that Sydney house prices could rise 20% this year. Yep, lock that in. 20% more the year after that too. Come 2019 we will be marvelling how Sydney housing has doubled since 2012. We will have plenty of time to marvel sitting in traffic on the way to work.

  5. I am married to a migrant. My children are dual passported. I am actually descended from Australians who came here in the 1830s (though nobody ever mentioned it when I was a kid). I grew up in a world which was about as Anglo-Irish as it would be possible to imagine. I can still actually recall the first ‘migrants’ who came to the town I grew up in and went to our school.

    I recall strongly that vibrancy that Soutphommasane refers to. It was the Melbourne of the 1970s and 80s. My recollection of moving from country Victoria to Melbourne was of vibrant energy and life, and migrants were probably the biggest single factor in that. Some of my favourite memories were the introductions to Mahjong or Grappa or the Middle Eastern cultural festivals, or the politics picked up when they explained why they were coming to Australia. I loved that vibrancy. I paid my way through Uni in party as an English tutor for migrants, trying to help out in whatever way I could for old Italian or Greek ladies whose heavily smoking husbands had died of heart attacks, for Chilean refugees or Eastern European Jews trying to come to terms with football and Australian art, or Cambodians trying to get the vegetables they were after. Later on as I went offshore for the first time I recall the quite regular sense of pride that I felt in Melbourne, where I genuinely believed multiculturalism ‘worked’ – people tended to come together, be reasonably accepting of their differences, and be united by a desire to create better lives for themselves and their kids mainly. I actually did think – when I saw first hand the issues elsewhere – that multiculturalism in the suburbs of Melbourne (and Sydney, when I saw it too) worked pretty well, and better than anywhere else I had ever seen.

    It was a different world then, there was an everyday sense of everyone being in it together to create a better country. Houses were cheap, jobs were easy to get. More pertinently we were told then that the migrants were coming to Australia as part of an economic plan – a plan to make sure Australia had industries of sufficient scale, with a range of skills. I can still recall being told how the migrants we were bringing in would tend to help us export whatever it was we wanted, and how they (and their children) would mean that we could talk to the world. The other distinction most of the migrants I ever came across had in common was that they were quite downmarket economically. They didn’t come with lots of money, they were generally reliant on whatever they could make here, and they were thrifty with it (the first time I ever came across Negative Gearing was a court where two Turkish brothers rented their houses off each other). That Australia also built far more houses than traded existing ones – the migrants often building their own (and well), further demonstrating their commitment to Australia. It was an Australia with a far bigger vision of where it was working towards, and far less a sense of entitlement about its place in the world.

    Somewhere along the line that sense of ‘in it together’ has vanished. The infrastructure which was generally upgraded in the 70s and 80s remains as it was then and is now being totally overwhelmed. The diversity and energy of the streets has become the alienation and sense of displacement of a trip to Box Hill or Glen Waverley. The jobs have vanished to be replaced with bullshit statistics. The economy that those migrants supplied workers for has been stripped back to the faux self-worship of HnH’s (and everyone elses) local shopping strip. More disturbingly the money these days is immune to the local economy – with the funds all too often coming obviously from elsewhere – enough to suck whatever comes past in need, but not committing any more than needs to be to growing or actually being here. Does it build for the future any more?

    The problem isn’t the migration of course. We could rehouse the whole of China and slip it into quarter acre blocks and use little more than Tassie to do so if we wanted. What has been lost has been the political commitment to making it work for all Australians and the economic narrative about how it fits in – all we get now is bullshit about how ‘Chinese buyers’ are good for prices, but how they also don’t affect them overall.

    That’s where the commitment to migration needs to come from once again. The narrative. The political leadership and the story about the economy we are creating and how vibrant that is going to be. All we get is evasiveness on the subject, spurious accusations bandied about whenever the everyday experience that migration has turned into some form of societal algal bloom that no longer supports the vibrancy it once did is aired. Our leadership now is telling us we cant afford to have the infrastructure to make our lives easier with the migration we have, but that we cant afford not to have the migration, and in telling us that it has slipped into denialism about any other perception.

    • NT you are on to it. This flood of immigrants to Europe will destroy the economies of most of those nations, however, as all will recall it was just over a hundred fifty years ago nearly every member nation of Europe has some sort to Territory in Africa, South America, West Pacific which they exploited and pillaged for wealth of the home nation. If it wasn’t for the exploitation of sugar and slaves, the UK may not have had the funds to push into the industrial revolution, so having the African migrants overrun their home land is natural justice. Straya doesn’t have nearly the same obligation; we imported our slaves from New Caledonia, Fiji etc, and used the local Black Fellas.
      And apart from the Black Fellas, we have made amends. But now we find the advance of that industrial revolution has made current productivity on a per person basis, on a steep decline, meaning that more people in the system, the less the output, (hows that for high school maths), and the primary major reason is that the natural ecology of the nation cannot with stand more humans. You all know my stance on AGW, but no one can deny we are destroying the local environment, at an unsustainable rate. Soon no one will be able to live here, there won’t be enough drinking water.

    • Ronin8317MEMBER

      Know anything about the Sustainable Party? Thinking about volunteering to hand out election how to vote cards in my area, but wanted to be sure they’re not a front for someone else.

    • Bloody hell Gunna, can you please put a webpage somewhere where you can store long comments like this, and link it here? I usually try to re-read your comments over the weekends, and but searching MB for specific comments is not easy.

      +many

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        You can bookmark/link directly to a specific comment by clicking on the time/date stamp above it.

        Might make your weekend revision easier.

    • Paddy Finucane

      Beautifully put mate, they were the days. Then we all became old and cantankerous.

      Would you mind doing what Coolnik says above? If you arent going to load these as actual posts, which this rant could easily be, would you mind making them easy to find? I know you are busy and all that, but trying to find informed articulate comment isn’t easy and you owe your ability with words a better outing than what you give it..

  6. Nah, the thing seems to be to shut down any discussion that is even slightly critical of immigration. Even though doing this is quite likely to result in those with genuine questions about how to best structure immigration policy moving further to the right, it is easy to call them racist and that is totally okay because racism is bad.

    MB = racist, because of this article.

  7. Multiculturalism doesn’t work as stated by various world leaders, it fosters parallel societies within host countries, it may be well intentioned but ultimately it weakens the host countries’ culture and identity. Austria quickly realised that with a pop. of 8.4m allowing 1.5m and counting, to potentially settle in Austria is just madness. It would change the fabric of society in the host county to the point where their culture and people are the minority. It’s not racism, it’s about being honest and pragmatic about unchecked and excessive immigration and we should be able to discuss it without being called a racist.

    • Multiculturalism has worked quite well in Australia because our migrants have been primarily from East Asia. Most second generation Vietnamese/Thai/Chinese are indistinguishable from other Aussies and the contribution from the older generation who have retained some of their culture has still been positive, adding diversity.

      Big contrast with Europe where migrants are mostly from Muslim majority countries, some with very conservative traditions, and sometimes finding an even more conservative form of Islam being preached in Saudi funded mosques in Europe. There is often little or no integration, younger generations becoming even more conservative and isolated.

      But that’s aside from the question of how many. In Sydney we have been told we need to house 1 million more people in the next 10 years. This is stated as fait accompli, but no-one seems able to say why why, when congestion, stretched public services, and high housing prices are already huge social and economic problems.

      • B-B-But Waleed Aly told me that those Moroccans who shot up the Bataclan did it because European society failed to integrate them! That those racist frenchies got what they deserved!

      • “Questioning Islam is Not Racism” might be a good title for a separate article. In Australia we have mostly very well integrated Christian Lebanese, but less well integrated Muslim Lebanese. We also have some seriously anti-social Muslims of anglo descent. OTOH there are a great many Muslims from south and South East Asia who haven’t yet been infected by Wahhabi hate mongering and have cultural traditions that could fit well within Australia. Its the spread of a certain hard-line ideology emanating from the Arabian heartland we need to beware of.

      • Agree. Islam is not just a religion, it’s a Theo-political structure that supercedes the laws and customs of Australia. Hence, they can argue for religion freedom while practising Sharia law, in short zero integration. And they keep shooting people.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        B-B-But Waleed Aly told me that those Moroccans who shot up the Bataclan did it because European society failed to integrate them! That those racist frenchies got what they deserved!

        Really ? Can you quote him on that ?

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Hence, they can argue for religion freedom while practising Sharia law, in short zero integration.

        No, not they can’t. For the same reasons Aboriginal communities shouldn’t be allowed to practice “traditional law”.

      • Sharia courts do operate, and while they have no legal standing, courts acknowledge them as “mediating” parties. They are instruments for the oppression of women from disadvantaged backgrounds, and should be banned outright.

  8. Domain Fax serving the interests of their housing-banking masters. What’s new? People everywhere sense something is wrong. In the UK, where this model of “growth” was pioneered with great zest since Thatcher, wages are soggy and inequality has exploded while low paying jobs and homelessness, and extravagantly expensive homes and rich landlords and other rent seeking parasites multiply and essential services like the NHS and public education under increasing strain and suffering quality problems; many places in the UK are feeling more and more thirdish worldish compared to their northern European neighbours – maybe that’s why people are getting pissed off. Something is rotten in the state Mr P Hacker.

    • Exactly the sentiments of a coworker of mine from the UK who left around the time of the GFC… We were just talking about Brexit and the issue of migrants came up and he pretty much said what you describe above!

      • Then they’ll get scolded by urban bourgeoisie “progressives” as being xenophobic or racist if they dare question it, or complain about the effects.

  9. there are many countries where the immigrants eventually take over due to their willingness to work hard.

    Many diaspora communities of Indians, Chinese, others have come to dominate the societies they have moved to either by being smarter, working as tight knit societies and/or by working harder. Then they employee strategies of moving community members to higher jobs etc, so that they can all climb the rung together. Australians, for whatever reason, don’t collaborate so well and can get left behind – which may promote fear mongering at times. Yet that’s human pack society. Anyone who has worked in the UN will tell you it is common for department leaders to bias selection of staff members from their own country. HR studies show that people employee people most like to them.

    What happens when the new immigrants don’t have first mover advantage aren’t as smart, and don’t have the same opportunities? In the past they those that tried and employ the strategy of working hard would open a corner store or start their own business – many times now there is already so much competition or high rents that it is hard to make those opportunities profitable. Even then, cost of housing is so high that it must be very hard not to want to rort the system for many people. If it takes 100 years to pay off a mortgage at your earning rate and you only live for 40 more it must be tempting to try to innovate in ways which don’t help society.

    Ethically, I can understand that many people want to come to live in Australia. We have created a safe and prospering land that is a big ocean from many wars. Due to scarcity of spots versus numbers of people who want to come in a heartbeat, there will always be demand for spots. Yes, this demand is growing, and the process is becoming more politicized than ever before. The world is much smaller and globalised than before. Within a 3 hour flight there are people who would do a job in Australia for 1-10 dollars an hour – and that may even be a high skilled job such as coding. The world is more unequal, and people are always looking to find a quick and easy way to move up/improve prospects.

    I can say 40 years ago my mother came from a very poor country to do her nursing qualifications in Australia after which she wanted to return to her home country with those skills and serve her home country – make it a strong country. On her way out, the Australian customs team convinced her to sign a citizenship form just in case she wanted to come back. She decided to stay only because my father had fallen in love with her and flew overseas several times to beg her to come back. She served Australia very well.

    How things have changed, yet it’s just an issue of scarcity. There are less places for people to want to go – as so much of the world is crumbling, and there are so many more people now. What’s wrong with employing a strategy of helping countries build strong communities overseas?

    I will say this – the demand for bringing in more people will only get more severe – due to climate change, rising sea waters, and the erosion of food, water and living sources. We aren’t ready for the wipe out of for example a low lying Bangladesh and 200 million people on our doorstep. That’s why we need to work with those countries to make sure they have plans that won’t swamp us in 20 years time.

    • We need to develop a fair migration platform; yet it will have its limits due to demand – so we need to employ an aggressive strategy of helping countries build strong and prosperous communities overseas. This is anathema to the free trade global competition race to the bottom regime – yet it will create a win-win regime. It will save future generations from severe decisions on migration.

  10. Well said HnH
    Surely it’s only a matter of time before one of the main political parties gets desperate enough to play the immigration card. It’s a sure-fire vote winner…even though it will burn their corporate backers

    • Shorten could promise to slash the immigration rate today – even by just 30% and he would probably win the election.

      But if you look at Europe – only the new parties like Geert, UKIP, Norbert Hofer are promising to slash immigration.

      So we really need a new anti-immigration party to come up in AUS.

      Vote 1 Sustainable Australia Party


      • Shorten could promise to slash the immigration rate today – even by just 30%

        NOM has already fallen 31% since June 2013 .Maybe Malcolm could claim a retrospective policy victory?

      • the everything issue

        Jacob, Sustainable Australia supports a balanced migration program where immigration = emigration. They simply want to lower immigration, from the current 200 000 per year, to the long term average of 70 000 per year. They would maintain the current refugee intake of around 14 000. This is not ‘anti immigration! http://www.VoteSustainable.org.au

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        cut immigration back to 70,000 and a doubling of the refo intake could easily be sold to the public.

    • FiftiesFibroShack

      The article is completely reasonable, it’s your view of the Greens that is not.

      • Why would you defend Greens failure to highlight the harm population growth is doing to GenY? Bizarre.

        Could you elaborate how an article that fails to disconnect enormous population growth and 10 000 refugees is “completely reasonable”?

  11. I worry that the proportion of recent arrivals will be si great that thry sway voting in favour of more and more immigration nonsense to get their mates over here. Ask those same people whether theybwould accept a swarm of aussies into their country though, and they will have none of it! Hypocrites.

    • Yes, a population of 40 million mainly Chinese will vote for Australia to become a Provence of China, then we’ll populate to hundreds of millions.

      The path is pretty much already set.

  12. Australia’s youth connect any discussion of population with racism. Where’s the youth vote? Greens. Where’s their condemnation? Absent.

    Carry on big business, LNP and Labor populate away unopposed.

    Who will suffer most? GenY.

    Perfect scam, led by Greens.

    • “Perfect scam, led by Greens.”

      Just imagine how scary things will be if the Greens double their power by holding on to their single seat and also winning a second in Batman. Two out of one hundred and fifty is absolutely terrifying.

      • The Greens need to clarify what immigration rate they want.

        The only thing the Greens say is they want more refugees to come here – but do not say if they will cut the “student” visa intake to make room for the refugees.

      • Greens are more guilty than the others because they hold the environment vote. Liars. Cheats.

  13. Great piece. As the faux “you’re a racist” epithet wears off on those that have a rational or skeptical view of immigration policy, I suspect it will be replaced with ‘nativist’ as the new smear for reasoned debate. Its already in use, lets see if it grows.

  14. stephenMEMBER

    too much censorship by the left wing in this country. When was the last time Hartcher wrote something with any merit? He is so far removed from the concerns of working Australia that his writing is irrelevant. Fairfax should have sent him packing first, how he has dodged so many bullets there ill never understand.

  15. I’ve personally experienced a lot of negative impacts from culturally incompatible migrants, so I’m against that type of migrant.

  16. Australia needs stronger rural towns and districts. New immigrants should have their welfare/social security payments dependent on them living a certain amount of time in a country area. Say two to three years.

    • Load of rubbish.

      There are already immigrants in rural Victoria. Even Bob Katter is against mass immigration from the 3rd world – because they come to rural QLD to work for 50c-$10/hour.

  17. These days immigration is used as a weapon against welfare state ( Europe particularly ). One can’t have both- welfare state and open borders. At the moment, welfare is losing,but people are starting to demand changes ( Brexit ).

  18. sydboy007MEMBER

    The majority of my friends were born overseas. I have a great respect for someone coming to study in Australia and being good enough to have a company spnsor them and they eventually get PR and onto citizenship if they can keep their birth country citizenship (purely for the eventuality of going home for their parents as they age).

    I can’t support high levels of immigration we aren’t willing to fund. I can’t support train trips approaching the crush of tokyo peak hour. I can’t support expensive private toll roads and CBD streets that are slowly moving car parks.

    I want a highly curtailed immigration policy. I want a discussion on what the long term sustainable population is for australia. I want to understand how much fresh water resources we’ll have in the future.

    I’m also fearful of increasing immigration of people who do not share common australian values. if you don’t believe in egalitarianism and by extension the equality of the sexes and protection of minorities then i’m fearful of the negative consequences you could have on australian society. if you believe the LGBT community is morally wrong and would like to outlaw our sexuality then I’m fearful of you (recent polling in the UK showed 1001 of 1001 muslims polled thought homosexuality was morally wrong, and another poll showed 52% wanted it to be crimininalised). if you believe that a religious ideology and the laws you follow from it are more important than following australian laws, then I’m fearful of you.

    Immigration in the past has been good for australia. generally we’ve had migrations who want to live within the australian culture and we’ve all helped create a new australian culture. heck thai is at least the Sydney national dish these days, and I love the fact we can eat food from practically any country and that some talented chefs are mixing the traditions of different countries to come up with new foods to tempt my already expanding waistline. i’m proud of the new australian culture we’ve created. i’m happy to see immigratns and their children hold on to the home country traditions and share them with us, but also sharing in the ideals of a modern pluralistic society that treats everyone the same.

    When I see what the regressive left has done to Europe, what it is doing in US college campuses, what it does in Australia with this idea of rape culture and infecting govt policy for adverts on domestic violence only showing male perpetrators when the stats show roughly it’s a 50% divide between the sexes, I’m fearful of where we are going.

    In the last 12ish months my attitudes have changed markedly. I used to think brandis was an idiot saying people have the right to be a bigot, but i’ve realised that if we don’t have the right to say what we think, if feelings trump rational discourse, if those who shout loudest and lie best win, then we’re royally borked. When the media takes the geneder pay gap as gospel, without any analysis and a man trying to explain how it’s wrong being criticised as manspalining, we’re fracked. We need a bill of rights, we need a legal right to free speech where you can say anything as long as not inciting violence towards someone.

    Saying you’re offended isn’t an argument. The best defence against bad ideas is to have them freely debated. When bigoted ideas are espoused criticise those ideas. As majid Nawaz says, no ideas is above scrutiny, no person below dignity.

    • drsmithyMEMBER

      When I see what the regressive left has done to Europe, what it is doing in US college campuses, what it does in Australia with this idea of rape culture and infecting govt policy for adverts on domestic violence only showing male perpetrators when the stats show roughly it’s a 50% divide between the sexes, I’m fearful of where we are going.

      Which stats ? Because I’m pretty sure the last time I saw some numbers about domestic homicide, the victims were overwhelmingly female (and the perpetrators overwhelmingly male).

      In the last 12ish months my attitudes have changed markedly. I used to think brandis was an idiot saying people have the right to be a bigot, but i’ve realised that if we don’t have the right to say what we think, if feelings trump rational discourse, if those who shout loudest and lie best win, then we’re royally borked.

      The problem is not “the right to be a bigot”.

      The problem is that it is taken (indeed, intended) to mean that criticism of bigotry is inherently invalid (because it’s an attack on “rights”, and you can’t attack someone’s “rights”).

      The other problem is that it assumes “the right to be a bigot” has no negative impacts. Like, say, driving people to depression, suicide or violence.

      Both of these are just extensions of the neocon belief that there’s no such thing as facts, everything is an opinion, all opinions are of equal value (except the ones they have of course – those are “truths”) and everyone gets a fair shake at voicing their opinions.

      When the media takes the geneder pay gap as gospel, without any analysis and a man trying to explain how it’s wrong being criticised as manspalining, we’re fracked. We need a bill of rights, we need a legal right to free speech where you can say anything as long as not inciting violence towards someone.

      What’s “violence” ? Does it include psychological abuse, or just good old fisticuffs ?

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Free speech is more important than feelings.

        So you’d be happy to step in and defend a muslim imam preaching hate against homosexuals ?

        Or a husband psychologically abusing his wife into clinical depression ?

        Or a gang of kids bullying another child into committing suicide ?

      • Read the post – domestic violence is not the same as domestic murder. It took a long time for it to be realised in Britain too that domestic violence does not equal violence against women.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Read the post – domestic violence is not the same as domestic murder.

        I consider murder to be violence. I’m funny like that.

      • fitzroyMEMBER

        drsmithy says feelings are more important than free speech. Or perhaps they are when drsmithy says so, because only drsmithy’s view counts.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        drsmithy says feelings are more important than free speech. Or perhaps they are when drsmithy says so, because only drsmithy’s view counts.

        Coming from someone who summarily dismisses anything they disagree with, occasionally with a side of strawman slaughter like this, that’s pretty funny.

      • So says the definitive straw man. Try reading the Koran if you want some hate speech to ban.

    • Fantastic comment sydboy. Glad to see a former lefty questioning idiocy of bringing in certain migrants that oppose lifestyles our society now thankfully finally see as normal.

      Left wing policies are ridiculous.

      Drsmithy twisting and turning the truth as usual. Most Australians are waking up to your bs. Hopefully it’s not too late.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        Im a massive lefty, believes in having a robust wealfare state, thinks everyone who works should be in a Union, would happily see the refo intake trippled, passionately believes in equality of opportunity for all and couldnt give a fuck who Roots who or who marries who (I do take exception to the marriage of minors to adult men)

        Though Im proud of our successful multicultural society, I and many of my left friends are totally opposed to the “Mass Immigration” occouring of late.
        Its producing monocultural enclaves rather than the multiculturalism I experienced in the 70s 80s and 90s.
        The Lefty greens support the lowest intake Richard,….not the liberal party brother, a party who cant wait to ramp up numbers to drive down all our wages and get a pat on the head by their big business bosses.

    • well said, I laugh and then shake my head when I see turnbull saying he wants legal gay marriage and then very publically dines with the muslim community just to get votes

  19. moderate mouse

    No amount of fact-finding can convince the anti-immigration mob that there are significant benefits to be had from an immigration program run well. Look at Brexit – an emotive debate driven largely by nationalist sentiment. Even after months of all kinds of bodies from the IMF down saying that the benefits of exiting the EU are outweighed by the costs, the Yes vote remains undeterred. Emotions drive these things, not facts.

    UE’s position is no different – an emotional response disguised as analysis. Take the following, stated blankly as plainly negative, “….and an approaching tipping point where economic integration with Asia will overwhelm traditional Western alliances.” So what? Why is that inherently bad? It’s not in my view. In yours it is. Pure emotion.

    The problem is poor management of immigration, not immigration levels themselves. Over-concentration in Sydney and Melbourne is creating deleterious outcomes for existing AND new residents. We need to spread our population around. This can only be done with significant government investment and incentives – at all three levels of government.

    Australia can handle many more people than we currently have. Sydney and Melbourne – not so much.

    • Australia can handle many more people than we currently have. Sydney and Melbourne – not so much.
      My! How you have changed your tune moderate mouse. Previously you were adamant there were no shortages in Sydney or Melbourne. What changed your mind may I ask?

      • moderate mouse

        I’m saying there are too many houses and apartments in Sydney and Melbourne, not too few.

    • So if you live in Sydney or Melbourne, and you hold the view that governments (especially state governments) are incapable of managing high levels of immigration (proven by past two decades) then you would agree it is perfectly rational to be anti-immigration?

      • Bingo. Self refuting nonsense of the critical theory left. They are ultimately technocrats that want to categorise and institutionalise everything from sex to thought. Very Mao. Very dystopic in the end.

      • “Bingo. Self refuting nonsense of the critical theory left. ”

        What makes you say Mighty Mouse is left-wing? If I was to try and label him, as I prefect as that is, is argue that he’s centre right from some of his comments. Although I’m so far left almost everything feels right-wing to me.. Anyway, there are plenty of people across the political spectrum that strongly support immigration..

    • I find it hilarious you attack me re education (which I assure you I’m highly educated) then say we can take many more migrants. Could you tell me what measure you’re using? Or is it you just think they’ll fit like drsmithy does. Do me a favour and do some research before you make comments you know nothing about.

    • there are significant benefits to be had from an immigration program run well.

      We’re not running it well. We should be importing the best of the best, making our country better, instead we’re simply importing en masse because Gerry Harvey and his business mates are fans of big Australia (ie more customers). In the meantime, current citizens are getting squeezed into a part time economy, our roads are packed, our schools are packed, our hospitals are packed, our public transport is packed, and every time someone points out that that may not be the best way to run a country, they’re called racist by some halfwit who considers “feels” to be more important than hard cold facts.

      Australia can handle many more people than we currently have.

      So where are you going to put these people? Where’s the infrastructure going to come from… remember, that’s a major part of the problem already.


      • We should be importing the best of the best,

        In the context of our falling living standards, stalling wage growth, falling currency, unaffordable housing and general lack of opportunity how might we go about attracting the ‘best of the best’ exactly?

  20. Reading some of the comments here today highlights how ignorant and under educated some of the readers are. It’s frightening.

    You have been captured. Indoctrinated into voting for policies that harm you.

      • I’m highly educated in all sorts of things and also have the ability to think for myself.

        Don’t confuse that with what you’ve been indoctrinated with and don’t question and laughably can’t defend.

  21. One of the worst aspects of this “racism” witch-hunt, is that most of the time, what people are critical of is the CULTURE that immigrants bring with them. I couldn’t care less what the skin colour is, as long as the reason they want in, is to share in OUR culture because it is obviously a good one.

    In the suburb I live in, there is an area of public housing where outbreaks of violence between Muslim immigrants from Africa and local Polynesian youth gangs, have become notorious (in fact the public housing has ended up being shut down and demolished). But across the road from me, is a large family of refugees from Sudan who are Christians who have fled from Muslim persecution, and they are excellent neighbours, peaceful and well-behaved, and deeply grateful for the charity they have been shown by their new host society.

    • kiwikarynMEMBER

      Absolutely agree. There are some cultures that add a great deal of value to ours – they bring a great work ethic, a focus on the importance of education, the desire to work hard and succeed, be upstanding citizens. Then there are the cultures that completely detract from ours – those that support honour killings, female genital mutilation, the oppression of women, demonisation of gays, and accept violence as a solution to anyone who does not hold the same opinion as them. This second category of immigrants should never be allowed in to the country. The first category should be welcomed with open arms. The difficulty of course, is identifying who is what.

  22. Sitting with popcorn as a bunch of white people discuss why they shouldn’t let other people in after they stole a continent, performed genocide on its people and took its wealth. Now they don’t want to share it and are worried about their living standards.

    #straya

    • @adit

      Answer this.

      Would indigenous Australians liked to have kept us out if they could?

      How is this different?

      • Oh you’ve cracked it!! The original foreign threat to oz are at risk of being wiped out by a new foreign threat. Close the gates! Great logic!

      • He’s just regurgitating BS he’s heard. No one could rationalize that themselves. It’s illogical.

      • Actually Richard you’re illogical… logic transcends time and space as well as inclusion of identities e.g. you can’t arbitrarily exclude to fit your personal preferences i.e. its applicable to everyone.

        Disheveled Marsupial… per say American can not complain about the Crimea after the Balkans…

      • “He’s just regurgitating BS he’s heard. No one could rationalize that themselves. It’s illogical.”

        Disheveled Marsupial… Your confusion wrt logic and your personal biases from an environmental aspect.

    • You are very naïve if you think that only white people steal land or are cruel to people. People have been “multiplying beyond their means of subsistence”, as Charles Darwin put it, and fighting over resources since before there were modern humans. It is small consolation if the people bashing your head in look like you. There is a huge literature on prehistoric warfare. See for example, this article by Prof Steven LeBlanc (Archaeology, Harvard)

      “Low-density foragers such as Australian Aborigines, Andaman Islanders, the peoples of Tierra del Fuego and Eskimos—all people with few possessions and whose subsistence strategies required frequent moves—had specialized weapons used only for warfare. They formed alliances, conducted surprise dawn attacks, and not infrequently slaughtered all the members of other groups. They killed strangers on sight if there was little risk in so doing. They located their camps or villages in such a way as to protect against surprise attacks. Their daily lives were filled with concerns about being attacked and the need for allies. Theirs was a world of constant vigilance against sudden organized violence.”

      http://www.the-american-interest.com/2009/07/01/war-and-human-nature/

      Everyone on Earth is living on stolen land, apart from the inhabitants of some extremely remote islands. If you want to be morally pure, you need to move to the Azores, St. Helena, or Norfolk Island.

      So far as the present is concerned, the Australian Academy of Science recommended a population of 23 million as a safe upper limit back in 1994. So far as I know, they have never updated it. The issue isn’t whether some immigration is good, it is who wins and loses from the huge numbers that the politicians are bringing in, with it being pretty obvious that the environment and ordinary people are losers.

      • Apples and Oranges… the tribal groups you reference never engaged in the type of ethic cleansing or large scale warfare that has plagued the northern hemisphere since PIE.

        Disheveled Marsupial… do agree wrt the pop numbers as far as sustainability goes where there a sufficient trade shock..

      • Quite the contrary, Skippy

        Read Steven LeBlanc’s book Constant Battles or Prof Lawrence Keeley’s War Before Civilization. It is true that tribal people tended to go in for raids and ambushes rather than huge pitched battles, but the attrition from tribal warfare resulted in total death rates that make our own blood-soaked 20th century look like a happy multicultural picnic.

        https://blog.britishmuseum.org/2014/07/14/violence-and-climate-change-in-prehistoric-egypt-and-sudan/

        There was actually less fighting in chiefdoms and state level societies because the central governments put a stop to it in the areas that they controlled.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        You are very naïve if you think that only white people steal land or are cruel to people.

        I see nothing in his post to suggest he thinks this.

      • Excellent post Tania. Haven’t read it, but ‘War Before Civilization’ has been in my Amazon wishlist for a while.

      • Tania…

        I said from PIE… population density factors negate percentages in regional tribal affairs over the long time line. That said adit thrust was anglophone hand whinging about cultural shifts and ethnic wealth consolidation and the privileges that affords.

        Disheveled Marsupial…. Anther UIC jem by Prof Lawrence Keeley… I can smell the MPS from my AO…

      • Your acronyms are very cryptic, Skippy. I have no idea what you mean by them. Keeley makes a lot of sense to me, and what he writes is consistent with a lot else that I have read. As a child, I was taken to see Mesa Verde in the American Southwest and marvelled at the fear that must have inspired people to live that way, with every grain of corn, drop of water, and stick of firewood having to be carried up a treacherous path into the cliffs. I don’t see why total numbers are more important than percentages. It is percentages that affect people’s lives.

      • “Your acronyms are very cryptic, Skippy. I have no idea what you mean by them.”

        Firstly desist with I don’t understand tropes, you’re trying obtusely to infer incoherence with being quite subject to the claim you make e.g. please quote where myself used the terminology “them” is used in a generalist sense.

        “Keeley makes a lot of sense to me”

        Not interested in you’re own personal environmental biases or confirmation bias as well as readings which are undefined and subjective w/o proper peer review in establishing base lines.

        “I don’t see why total numbers are more important than percentages. It is percentages that affect people’s lives.”

        Total numbers indicate loss of life or in econnomics capital formation e.g. more loss of life occurred post WI due to not death in conflict, but, the mass movement of people to facilitate the war and the resulting Spanish flu which was much more indiscriminate in killing imo…

      • “Your acronyms are very cryptic, Skippy. I have no idea what you mean by them.”

        Don’t feel too concerned.

        Skip doesn’t understand them either.

      • PIE, UIC, MPS, AO? When I was doing my science degree, I was always taught that acronyms should be spelled out the first time that they are used. Keeley is a professor of anthropology (archaeologist, actually) at the University of Chicago, if he hasn’t retired. You can find any number of his peer-reviewed papers with a bit of searching.

      • Tania…

        I was under the impression that you had the acumen to understand PIE represented proto indo european culture… ditto… UIC – University of Illinois at Chicago, MPS – Mont Pelerin society, AO – area of operations… I mean if your going to quote sociology as informed by archeology then you should be cognitive of the terminology.

        RP….

        The suggestion that you don’t grok stuff says more about you than it does anything about myself…

        Dishevel Marsupial… nice to see you two backing each other up btw… its a tell…

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        “nice to see you two backing each other up btw… its a tell…”

        Yea Skipp, proto indo european culture, University of Illinois at Chicago, Mont Pelerin society, area of operations… I knew those acronyms. 😉

        But what’s “its a Tell” suppose to mean?

      • EP…

        Tania referenced a white paper which presumes to establish a base line on anthropology to buttress her ethnic sensibilities, but does not have the acumen to understand a basic acronym like PIE… that is a tell…

        RP is just another patriarchal sort w/ a bunch of esoteric baggage…

        Disheveled Marsupial…. see poker…

      • Skippy,

        My degrees are actually in physics, not sociology or archaeology, but the argument is plain enough. I don’t recall writing anything racist. Prof Keeley actually did a lot of his work on early Neolithic farming settlements in Northern Europe. As he makes clear, tribal warfare took place all over the world among all sorts of people. You have turned insulting and tried to smear Prof. Keeley, who is not an economist and says nothing about economics, because these views on tribal warfare are supported by a lot of evidence, and you don’t like having the standard social justice warrior dogma on white guilt challenged.

      • Tania…

        “Apples and Oranges… the tribal groups you reference never engaged in the type of ethic cleansing or large scale warfare that has plagued the northern hemisphere since PIE. ”

        You restored and I said…

        “I said from PIE… population density factors negate percentages in regional tribal affairs over the long time line. That said adit thrust was anglophone hand whinging about cultural shifts and ethnic wealth consolidation and the privileges that affords.”

        You respond…

        “Your acronyms are very cryptic, Skippy. I have no idea what you mean by them”

        I responded too…

        ““Your acronyms are very cryptic, Skippy. I have no idea what you mean by them.”

        With…

        “Firstly desist with I don’t understand tropes, you’re trying obtusely to infer incoherence with being quite subject to the claim you make e.g. please quote where myself used the terminology “them” is used in a generalist sense.”

        To which I will reiterate… the whole white thingy is a misnomer when I used ethic, btw wtf is white any way when DNA makes a mockery of it, the deal is with why people die in conflict, what proceeds conflict and how much ideological or metaphysical beliefs play a part of it.

        Disheveled Marsupial… I agree with adit on the the anglophone hand wringing regardless of your disagreement… I suggest you tot off to the anthro dept and get a more nuanced view…

      • Tania,

        I see you have discovered Skippy. A rare and special creature that is best avoided where possible.

        Skippy specialises in amateur hour rhetoric so don’t take too much notice of his constant and irritating incoherent resort to gibberish, authority (that is rarely relevant or supports the point he may be trying to make – it is never entirely clear) and the kitchen sink.

        It is deliberately opaque to conceal the lack of clarity in Skip’s own position.

        When pushed on a point you can expect the usual hand waving and distractions and bit of bully boy behaviour – he was a mercenary you know.

        Oh and every thing is explained by a conspiracy of mostly dead white men from the University of Chicago and some dead Austrians – thus the constant references to the university of Chicago and MSP and many more.

        But nothing is explained by the modern banking system – that is a structure of sublime beauty that simply requires a few good preferably exceptional American men.

        On the upside he often links to articles that are worth a read but mostly leave you wondering why Skippy thought they were slam dunk support for his aggressive certitude.

        Don’t bother trying to point that out though as he reads for mill grist not understanding.

      • Ahhh…. 007 the money crank that thinks all of humanity problems arise from usury and banks, but finds it difficult to talk about anything else. The worst bit is the club members like ellen brown, musgrave, and their traveling companions, not that any of then actually know how the system works, but envision a grand plan plucked from the bowels of their minds. The one and only a priori they hand wring about is the term debt.

        Disheveled Marsupial…. weird about all the links and perspective by multiple authors pointing out factual history…. to back up what they say 007…. hell your still missing the shadow sector is manifold the banking sector and unregulated…

    • Adit. Your argument is ridiculous. How do you come up with this BS?

      It wasn’t my kids that invaded Australia. I want to protect their interests like you wish the indigenous could have been protected.

      • Ethnic memory is problematic see Vietnam…

        Disheveled Marsupial…. not to mention when you brake a 60k year old plate is hard to put back together…

      • It wasn’t an argument. It was just an observation of white privilege. It’s rife in this thread.

    • Are you Aboriginal.

      Did you ask a few of them.

      Who says Aboriginals want more immigrants?

    • Erhh…

      what happened to Aborginal Australia is an argument to restrict immigration, not let it occur unfettered.

  23. Immigration is great when there is huge overcapacity in transport and other services and infrastructure.
    but when the infrastructure and transport are operating at 120% of design capacity and when even just a vocal minority of the immigrant communities are dramatically challenging so many facets of the current predominant culture the majority of the population resents the political and business desire for increased population through large migration programs. We are reaching that time/scale of immigration. And it is immigaration that is the focus not (only) because of racism and xenophobia, but because the population growth from natural growth is so low it is below replacement for most immigrant groups/families who have been in Australia for more than the first generation of arrivals. If you want successful immigration you need to maintain the standards of living through infrastructure and services and this is where governments have failed the citizenry and the potential immigrants.

    • ” If you want successful immigration you need to maintain the standards of living through infrastructure and services and this is where governments have failed the citizenry and the potential immigrants.”

      Spot on. Everything, like claims of racism, is just a distraction.

  24. Left thinking brains don’t function properly.

    Reading some of the comments today is frightening.

  25. Nobody mentioned that a lot of these immigrants cheat on exams to come here:

    http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/bad-nurse-washed-up-patient-was-fed-detergent/story-fndo4bst-1226601031354

    They are retrospectively making Aussie degrees worthless.

    And they are making it very hard to get a job because immigration into AUS is largely from the 3rd world. These immigrants come here to work for illegal salaries (50c-$10/hour) for the lure of an Aussie passport.

    457 visa workers get to stand at the front of the job queue when so many voters are looking for a job!

    • And Aussies don’t cheat right? They don’t make mistakes either or take shortcuts or anything like that?!
      Your generalisations about migrants don’t help your view points/constant rants.

  26. Immigration Restrictions, who really decides this issue?
    From what I can see far to many MBers still look at maps that have big portions of the globe painted Red with little Union Jack symbols in the corner.
    Unfortunately that map was already out of date 50 years ago when I was in Primary school and It’ll be nothing short of laughable to reference it in 50 years time. Immigration is a slow process so it needs to position Australia for the world we’ll have in 50 or even 100 years.
    What happens if we fail to do this? Maybe the rest of the world simply leaves us alone, or maybe they dont, maybe they simply decide that they can manage the country better than we do.
    It’s naive to even suggest that Australia can make these Immigration decisions in a vacuum. Truth is Today 7B people share this one world. it’ll probably be 9B in 30 years time and maybe top 12B by the end of the century.
    I suspect the notion of 25M Aussies occupying a continent while Billions starve is likely to be decidedly unappealing to the Billions so maybe they’ll find other solutions.

    BTW: I just tried to find a translation of Terra Nullius into Chinese fortunately for Aussies they don’t seem to have such a concept.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      “I suspect the notion of 25M Aussies occupying a continent while Billions starve is likely to be decidedly unappealing to the Billions so maybe they’ll find other solutions.”

      WTF Bob!!!!!,…That Sounds like an argument to Nuclear Arm Australia!
      Maybe we could buy Britons, secondhand Vanguard class submarines when they up grade soon.
      Im sure the mother country would give us a good deal.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vanguard-class_submarine

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Successor-class_submarine

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trident_nuclear_programme

      • It just blows my mind that each one of those Successor subs costs about as much as one of their new aircraft carriers – and that’s with no nukes! Talk about an epic waste of human ingenuity and resources.

    • And why are the billions starving, China Bob? Back in 1900, global population was about 1.6 billion, most of it in appalling poverty. The Haber-Bosch process dramatically increased food production. It is responsible for nearly half the nitrogen in your body. The Green Revolution doubled food production again and tripled it in some places. Everyone on Earth could have had education, health care, and a decent First World standard of living, without driving the 6th mass extinction or our other environmental problems.

      http://www.anthropocene.info/

      The “starving billions” decided to “feed more hungry people, rather than feeding hungry people more”, as Prince Philip once put it. Ermington Plumbing’s solution looks at lot more attractive than making Australia as poor, populous, environmentally degraded, and conflict ridden as the places that people are risking their lives to escape.

      • Oh now I see you Tania….

        The Green revolution or better known as the Corporatist revolution sponsored by Norman Borlaug, worked wonders for the corporate bottom line as it made them dependent on their products. Ideology dressed up as saving the world….

        Disheveled Marsupial…. cute how that works….

    • “Immigration Restrictions, who really decides this issue?”

      Those strong enough to apply restrictions.

      Australian aboriginals couldn’t.
      Native Americans couldn’t.
      The British in 1066 couldn’t.
      The British in 1939-1945 could !
      The British in 2015 won’t… for example.

      “From what I can see far to many MBers still look at maps that have big portions of the globe painted Red with little Union Jack symbols in the corner.
      Unfortunately that map was already out of date 50 years ago when I was in Primary school and It’ll be nothing short of laughable to reference it in 50 years time. Immigration is a slow process so it needs to position Australia for the world we’ll have in 50 or even 100 years.”

      The outcome of Australia in 50 to 100 years time is not manifest.

      “What happens if we fail to do this? Maybe the rest of the world simply leaves us alone, or maybe they dont, maybe they simply decide that they can manage the country better than we do.”

      That’d be really interesting.

      Imagine 100% of the white/north European global populace, all of a sudden suffering no white guilt.

      In fact, all feeling white jingoism, or even REAL white supremacy.

      What does.. or what can, the rest of the world do about it? If it was “us vs them”, it’d be hard to see the rest of the world doing anything other than accepting getting their arses kicked.

      If said population were instilled to enforce their supremacy, uncategorically, by force, the rest don’t have the means to resist.

      “It’s naive to even suggest that Australia can make these Immigration decisions in a vacuum. Truth is Today 7B people share this one world. it’ll probably be 9B in 30 years time and maybe top 12B by the end of the century.”

      Forever is a long time. Do you recall in history things like famines and plagues which wipe out 50-70% of populations?

      Are you aware of immense destructive power of modern weaponry?

      “I suspect the notion of 25M Aussies occupying a continent while Billions starve is likely to be decidedly unappealing to the Billions so maybe they’ll find other solutions.”

      Drowning off our shores won’t be an answer they’ll continue to pursue for long, if that is the decided path.

      “BTW: I just tried to find a translation of Terra Nullius into Chinese fortunately for Aussies they don’t seem to have such a concept”

      Yet they’ve applied it to Tibet, the Guangdong and the Guangxi peoples. It’s why a place like Vietnam won’t accept China, so it’s pretty trite to assume we have a manifest duty to accept it.

    • kiwikarynMEMBER

      We’ll have sold the entire country to the Chinese by then – no need to invade, they will already have bought their houses, farms, mines, and businesses here. The real question is where will the 25M Australians go when their landlords take possession?