‘Think tank’: Stop Muslim migration

That’s the advice of the Australian Institute for Troglodytes Progress via The Australian today:

There are only three ways Australia can pay its public debt. Either both sides of politics agree there will be no new net spending until such time as the national debt has been dealt with, or deny the vote to all those who pay no taxes.

…There is a third way. Go full bore popular and win big. Australia is sucking in too many of the wrong type of immigrant. This can be fixed and would be popular. There is no doubt many Australians have considerable misgivings about Muslim immigration and the ability of many to fit in.

Almost 70 per cent of Australians are in favour of a strong immigration intake, but Australians are strongly divided over the content of the intake.

…Many Muslims in those countries are illiberal. Their values are inconsistent with liberal Australia.

Until now, Australia has chosen immigrants mainly on the basis of language and employment skills. But even educated people may harbour thoughts and practices inimical to Australia.

…Where multiculturalism clashes with the security of Australians it has little chance of remaining public policy. In a liberal society, the only quibble is how to arrive at the point of abandonment.

Selective immigration that explicitly cuts Islamic migrants would not enhance Australian security. It would do the opposite as the local Muslim population was marginalised, became quite understandably defensive, and stopped giving up angry young men.

Would this national policy vandalism win back One Nation voters, which is its clear object? Nope. That party hates Asian immigration just as much as Muslim and it is the lived experience of falling living standards driven by the population ponzi that is at the base of its popularity. Substituting Muslims for boat people as the national enemy while holding open the front door to Chinese and Indians is a deeply poisonous proposition.

The entire immigration level must be cut on the basis of the economic damage it is doing. Picking on any one group is dangerously close to fascism.

Comments

  1. > Selective immigration that explicitly cuts Islamic migrants would not enhance Australian security. It would do the opposite as the local Muslim population was marginalised, became quite understandably defensive, and stopped giving up angry young men.

    That kinda sounds like a good argument FOR “nipping it in the bud” as it were.

    1) Apparently they’re fostering “angry young men”
    2) Apparently pissing them off will unleash said “angry young men”
    3) We all know what #2 implies.

    Care to rephrase your argument, H&H?

      • Again, you seem to be arguing for a ban.

        > Australia is at war in various Muslim nations. That produces anger.

        Probably not a fantastic idea to bring the survivors in then, hey?

      • If I was trying to convince people to do so, I’d use your words.

        Personally, I’m skeptical of Islam’s ability to coexist. They can’t even seem to get along with each other letalone godless bastards like me.

      • bolstroodMEMBER

        May be we stop waging war in Muslim countries.
        Why do we wage war ? Are we a bunch of psychopaths ?
        Is our “peace ” bought by following the US into every Imperial war so they will “protect” us ?
        Is it not more likely we will need protecting if we go around the world making war on others?

      • AndynycMEMBER

        Agreed. Once you start selecting one group over another it can begin a slippery slope.

      • Would be most helpful if the US empire stopped dropping bombs on them in a fanciful attempt to make us believe they have a strategic objective that makes sense.

      • myne,

        Have you ever lived in a Muslim country? No? Didn’t think so, but I have. Spent two yrs in Bahrain in the lead up to the 2nd Gulf war, got there 4 mths prior to it’s start and had my family there. Daughters went to an international school which was mainly muslims from expat families and not once were my daughters abused or ostracised by the other children or not invited to kids parties etc. My wife and I were never on the receiving end of any abuse or harsh words yet the vast majority were not happy about western inference in Iraq.

        Now change the country and the people and make then Australian and watch the abuse fly. It isn’t muslims who cannot coexist, it’s us westerners who can’t. You haven’t a clue.

    • Apparently what recently happened in Jakarta must be fake news. Ahok? Never heard of hin. Oh hang on, wasn’t he the guy just starting 2 years in the slammer (and that because the judges were so terrified of Muslim reaction they overruled the prosecution’s recommendations) for daring to suggest the Koran was wrong when it stated that Muslims cannot be ruled by non-Muslims?
      Start of the movie “Death of a democracy”? But then, democracies are rather rare in the Muslim world aren’t they.
      I think you should turn the argument round and say: What are the advantages of allowing Muslim immigration? What can they offer that everyone else can’t? Silence all round. The problem with the happy Left is they don’t have relatives and friends who have paid with their limbs for Muslim attitudes.

      I have, and I don’t need a return to the religious views prevalent when Henry VIII was on the throne of England.

      • Funny to refer the staunchly Christian and original ‘Defensor Fidei’ who lit the touchpaper for nearly 500 years of sectarian violence within the British Isles in this context, and more so considering his first father-in-law’s approach to Christian-Muslim relations.

      • R
        He had a few father in laws! I suppose that’s because a lot of people married to him were losing their heads! If you mean Ferdinand of Aragon, he WAS something of a specialist in making you choose which poison to take. The only thing I’ll say about Catholicism (and I’m a retired Catholic boarding school product) is that it’s been much improved after a few hundred years of cutting it down to size. Same goes for the C of E mob. The problem is, we don’t have the same time or opportunity to do it to Islam.

        It’s no coincidence that religions where the principle that ‘God comes from within’ is taught don’t have the same savage, ignorant profiles.

      • I could only infer Robert’s response pertains to Ferdinand II of Aragon though there are numerous contenders for the title of father-in-law to Henry VIII.
        A pity we can’t transport ourselves back to the end of the 15th century to right those wrongs but I am still a little perplexed with how the comment is relevant to Rob Barratt’s comment on contemporaneous events and attitudes.

  2. ‘Go full bore popular and win big’

    They sound like a serious group of people with carefully considered opinions.
    Get a few more groups like this going, and the rest of the nation will end up doubling NOM just to prove they aren’t cut from the same cloth.

  3. “That party hates Asian immigration just as much as Muslim”

    Now that is just not true. Pauline Hanson made a big deal about Asians in the mid 90s, at which time she probably was not even aware of the existence of Islam. But that was a long, long time ago: Seinfeld was biggest show on TV, Wayne Carey was tearing up the AFL, hardly anyone had email, smart phones and social media hadn’t been invented. Hanson now could not care less about Asians. She has moved on. She is a monogamous hater, and the object of her hate is Muslims, no one else.

  4. Torchwood1979

    I just read that article three times (disclaimer, pre coffee) and are they seriously arguing that banning Muslim immigration will somehow pay down the national debt? Or is there more in that article that helps it make sense?

    • I think the “logic” is:

      Exclude muslims
      Become popular
      Win a big majority at the next election because you are now so popular
      Introduce whatever deficit reducing policies you want

  5. ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

    “Picking on any one group is dangerously close to fascism.”

    Yes,…it is.

    As a huge Christopher Hitchens fan and like him, a strong atheist, some of the more devout Muslims entering the country,…irk me a little (so do my evangelical inlaws),…but most I meet are not particularly devout and are happy to mix with the wider Australian community.
    These people who do so, deserve our Solidarity.

    New arrivals, who break our Laws, deport them,…fine, but do it fairly across the board.

    The “Australian way of life” is under threat, I believe, but from Globalisation, Neoliberalism and a Mass Immigration program, that just lets in too many people.
    Successfully​, scapegoating the followers of whole Religion, is going to fix or change fuck all.
    Not for the better,… anyway.

    • Yes Ermo An interesting example is Iran’s so-called Islamic Revolution. The uprising that deposed the Shah was as much leftist as it was religious. Unfortunately the religious gained ascendancy. Who controls the present etc…

      US meddling in Iran affairs escalated after Mosaddegh’s oil and gas industry nationalisation plans gained momentum. Interesting history with CIA (Kermit Roosevelt) engineered coup.

      Iranian prospective migrants want to leave the religion behind them.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        Yes, the few Iranians I know, aren’t religious at all and my Aussie mates Iraqi dad (Muslim upbringing) is one of the staunchest Atheists I know,…a Radical even!.
        (Believes all religious teaching of children should be banned!)

  6. The only mistake with that statement is the explicit reference to Muslims. We have budgetary limitations that need to be adhered to if we are to avoid a Greece-like welfare system meltdown.

    IMO what conservatives need to do is come up with actual estimates and let the progressives play god. Example (not actual figures):
    – cost of a refugee who is likely to remain lifelong welfare dependent is $25k pa x 40 years life expectancy = $1m
    – double or triple the cost for those who are likely to have offspring that will also become lifelong welfare dependent
    – cost of a refugee likely to eventually find work is $100k

    With a budget of $20 billion let the progressives decide what mix enters the country

    • “The only mistake with that statement is the explicit reference to Muslims.”

      That is some mistake when it is the fundamental feature of the whole plan.

      • Their message is mixed in conflating budget with assimilation. If the focus is put on budget then both sides of politics will be forced to favour those who are likely to find work which will at least partially solve the assimilation issue.

        A point on discrimination. Anything less than open borders is discrimination. If you accept that open borders is not feasible due to collapse of the welfare system, population explosion, deaths at sea, etc, then you are forced into a position of discrimination. The only decision to be made is what level of discrimination. Note that favouring women and children is discrimination against men. Favouring oppressed minorities is discrimination based on race or religion. We are already discriminating.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        If the focus is put on budget then both sides of politics will be forced to favour those who are likely to find work which will at least partially solve the assimilation issue.

        Which immigrants have been finding the most work for the last decade ? Are they assimilating ?

        A point on discrimination. Anything less than open borders is discrimination. If you accept that open borders is not feasible due to collapse of the welfare system, population explosion, deaths at sea, etc, then you are forced into a position of discrimination.

        No, that’s selection.

        Discrimination is prejudicial and unreasonable selection.

      • Smithy, I don’t have the answer to that. Hence my suggestion that conservatives should do the research and come up with a dollar figure.

        Ok, let’s “select” the people who are the least costly. There are no references to race or religion in that statement. We are purely maximising the refugee intake within a limited budget.

      • The only reference should be to specific and real skill needs for the benefit of the economy. In other words controlled and properly managed migration. Has the Australian government ever managed anything effectively?

      • nexus, we are talking refugee/humanitarian intake which has an implied cost to the nation.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Smithy, I don’t have the answer to that.

        Maybe you should read some of the posts here from “Mike”, “Jacob” and others. They reckon it’s mostly third-world trash at best, liars and thieves at worst.

  7. Terror Australis

    “Think Tank” should be in scare quotes.
    Any time a pressure group wants to put a fig leaf of respectability on their agenda they pay a group of independent *wink* academics with an Orwellian sounding name to publish a propaganda piece backing them.

    There is precious little “Thinking” going on.
    It happens on the left too but predominantly on the right because they have the money for this kind of ruse.

  8. Anyone defending ISLAM is simply naive and does not understand the ‘religion’. Ban Islamic immigration now unless you want to see Australia end up like France/ Belgium/ Sweden……………etc. Take your pick.

    I don’t like them and I don’t want them here. Period. Is that offensive? Oh well, get over it.

  9. H&H – I did try to google ON’s statements around immigration, housing affordability, economic migrants, I just see Islamophobia and race based exclusion not net zero immigration. ON’s website has some suggestion but then greens have a bridge to sell on their website too.

    Selective immigration that explicitly cuts Islamic migrants would not enhance Australian security. It would do the opposite as the local Muslim population was marginalised, became quite understandably defensive, and stopped giving up angry young men.

    Agree with myne’s comments above too, you might be right in your empathy as a editor of this site with a message but wrong in your conclusion. Young angry men are not handed over in fact their rise is a direct result of not assimilating in the society of the broader group which is far more acute then other groups. They are being picked up by agencies who are tracking them and in a similar way there is a case for pre-clearing immigrants selectively based on history. You might be better off to suggest a stricter check on skilled migrants as a alternative argument & their ability to get employment in highly skilled areas as a criteria which can filter the unwanted indirectly to an extent.

    Until now, Australia has chosen immigrants mainly on the basis of language and employment skills. But even educated people may harbour thoughts and practices inimical to Australia.

    I would rather agree with this comment from rupert article and will ignore the suggestion for specific religion based reduction in immigration. Based on this there is a case for specific process to pre-clear people through different means before they enter Australia or may be even avoid if there is enough evidence to support it, its nothing different than a bank avoiding post codes before lending when its in their best interests economically at least & have a queue of others less riskier waiting. IMO, immigration is either based on economic benefit or helping people in need with a collective limit on numbers while ensuring society thrives as it did historically.

  10. DarkMatterMEMBER

    People have been conditioned to think race and religion are the same thing. They are not. The big objection to bringing in muslims is their bad religion. We are entering a time of political and economic upheaval, and the wicked old world religions thrive on that. We already have our own problems mopping up the last bits of Holy Roman Empire with Pell and friends.

    If the immigrants would just leave their invisible friend at the airport gate, fine. But, they won’t do that will they? Instead they will come to Australia to escape the violence of their own country, then promptly try to replicate it here. We should be doing whatever we can to halt the growth of Islam in Australia. Reverting to 9th century religions is not progress!

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      The “ultimate stupidity” of believing in an invisible friend in the sky,… isn’t just an Islamic phenomenon.

      One of My favorite 5 min “Hitch slaps”, Given to an evangelical fellow (I think),…
      I can’t help but wonder if that guy regretted asking Chris the question, or whether he’d try and beat him (Hitchens) up afterwards.

      https://youtu.be/K0uK6UyF_EM

      • DominicMEMBER

        Always enjoyed Hitch’s dismantling of religion … but was desperately disappointed he went on to side with the Washington neo-con’s.

        U.S. exceptionalism is frankly BS and just an excuse to go and bomb the crap out of brown people (h/t George Carlin). And the Yanks have the gall to wonder why there is a major terrorism issue the world over.

    • I’m not a bigot right now I hate all immigrants haha. I just want the rate lowered and we should definitely avoid importing third world types with no hope of integration of finding work.

      So yes we should be selective (because we can) but we should also be humane to refugees that do need help. However we should not go full retard like Merkel , Merkel was an idiot.

  11. Won’t work. Islamic people near me are mostly Asian and they seem to be pretty well liked. These Abbott/Bernadi type conservatives ain’t conserving shit and most people know it. I did see a bogan in a van get aggressive with a mother pushing a pram crossing the road the other day, driving up way too close and beeping her, but there’ll always be one or two like that.

  12. drsmithyMEMBER

    Many Muslims in those countries are illiberal. Their values are inconsistent with liberal Australia.

    LOL. As are many locals. Like, say, Cory Bernadi’s mates, One Nation and a large chunk of the Coalition.

    When it comes to harm caused to Australians by religion, Islam is a rounding error.

      • I’m sure there are plenty of Protestant nutters amongst the coalition’s RWNJ contingent.

        Does our Pauline actually have any religious beliefs beyond ‘Muslims are bad, m’kay?’

      • The argument that Muslim immigration is fine as long as they’re in a minority (no Jakarta syndrome) is as logical as stating that heavy metal salts are toxic, but as long as you don’t ingest too much they won’t kill you.
        They’re not a good idea in the first place.
        PS I haven’t noticed Bernardi (for all that I don’t like Catholicism either) hanging any gays recently. But I’m sure you can look up Iran on the internet if you want the Islamic view and lots of pictures.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        The argument that Muslim immigration is fine as long as they’re in a minority […]

        I believe the argument is that immigration is fine so long as they’re not religious nutters of any stripe.

        Presumably you belong to the camp that believe all Muslims are implicitly religious nutters, or lying about not being religious nutters ?

        I haven’t noticed Bernardi (for all that I don’t like Catholicism either) hanging any gays recently. But I’m sure you can look up Iran on the internet if you want the Islamic view and lots of pictures.

        Goodness me this straw man takes a pounding.

        Is anyone arguing in favour of allowing people who kill gays to immigrate ? Do you think every Muslim in Iran wants to kill gays ? How about the Muslims in Iran who are gay, where do they fit in ?

      • drs
        I’ve known a few very moderate Muslims, including one who drank! The issue is NOT about individuals. The issue is about group dynamics.
        The fact is, the nature of Islam is such that it’s immigrants do not assimilate. There are too many differences. It always ends up in a paranoid, deprived ghetto. Molenbeek in Brussels is a classic example. Ask an inhabitant of Brussels what the difference is between Molenbeek and Chinatown . I lived in Brussels for a year (and also Saudi Arabia for a year). I can give you some hints….
        I’ve no doubt you heard Australia’s most senior Muslim say a while back that one of the Paris atrocities must have been due to Islamophobia. What kind of mindset is that?
        You’re bombed, therefore you fear them, therefore you’re bombed. Right, OK(?)!
        Islam is aggressively proselytizing, largely with Saudi money (ignoring the equally strenuous Iranian Shia efforts here of course) and the accompanying Wahhabi mindset.
        How do you explain what happened to Ahok in Jakarta? That shows the power of the group and it’s deadly effect on democracy. As for outright terrorism, ISIL would be the first to tell you, a little bomb goes a long way. Human nature is such that no one is going to ignore those explosions and say – it’s OK – it’s only a few of them. Due to the natural feedback effect of fear, the Muslims will become more isolated, therefore more angry. People will increasingly choose not to employ Muslims.
        It’s the nature of the beast. It couldn’t happen if the Koran were not condoning violence. If it were not for political correctness this book would have been subject to legal constraints as a hate speech document. It’s vastly different in that respect from the Bible (for historical reasons – no credit to the Bible here).

        Muslim immigration portends nothing but trouble.

      • In terms of isolation, I would have a look at this:
        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LbQv-YSA_rI
        Those poor women think they will get jobs in technology or medicine. What are they being taught?
        Fresh water and salt water do not mix. Official, it’s in the big K. Apart from temporary effects in estuaries this is obviously complete nonsense. Just how are they going to get on in the real world? It makes creationism look positively scientific…

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        The issue is NOT about individuals.

        Yes, it is, because all that stuff you write about “Muslims”, ends up impacting individuals when it is applied to them indiscriminately.

        I have to wonder how you ever managed to even meet a Muslim, let alone come to know them well enough to say they are “very moderate”, when you believe they are all violent jihadis trying to kill you.

      • Que? I say “Group Dynamics” you say “They’re all Jihadis trying to kill me”. Just a slight problem in translation there. That’s not even a reductio ad absurdum. You must be short of a more reasoned response.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        I say “Group Dynamics” you say “They’re all Jihadis trying to kill me”. Just a slight problem in translation there. That’s not even a reductio ad absurdum. You must be short of a more reasoned response.

        I save reasoned responses for people making reasoned assertions.

    • [email protected]MEMBER

      and don’t forget good ol boy Bullock SDA rep

    • DarkMatterMEMBER

      You are missing the point DrSmithy. Christianity has been a problem in the past, although overall we have gottten off lightly here in Australia. Western civilisation made the split between state and religion centuries ago, and we have (had) a method of bringing religion to heel. After the split came scientific rationalism and humanism, which have mostly been effective.

      Arguing that the damage caused by Islam in Australia has been a rounding error is definitely a strawperson argument. Islam has been virtually nonexistent here. Islam has no self regulating mechanism that prevents the crazy – in fact it is designed to do the opposite – stifle change and reform. That means a potential big problem in the future.

      The big mistake many people make is to assume that the culture of the individual (western) is universal. Islam puts itself above the individual – that is why they have suicide bombers. It is foolish to think you can reason with people that have surrendered (or never had) their individuality. You constantly want to see muslims as individuals – they are not.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        You are missing the point DrSmithy.

        Indeed. Apparently “the point” is that we should treat people based on what we’ve heard about their beliefs, rather than what their beliefs and actions actually are.

        I have to admit I got a chuckle from the “after the split came scientific rationalism and humanism” comment, given the role Islam has played in the past in preserving and developing knowledge.

        The big mistake many people make is to assume that the culture of the individual (western) is universal. Islam puts itself above the individual – that is why they have suicide bombers.

        Right. Because nowhere in the history of western war has a soldier ever gone into battle willing and expecting to die for his comrades.

        It is foolish to think you can reason with people that have surrendered (or never had) their individuality. You constantly want to see muslims as individuals – they are not.

        Actually i try to see people as people, regardless of their religions. At least until they give me a reason not to.

      • DarkMatterMEMBER

        I have to admit I got a chuckle from the “after the split came scientific rationalism and humanism”

        Yes – Islam was at the front of intellectual progress until they lost the lead due to their invisible friend. Look at them now – anti intellectual. That is hard to dispute I would think. England thrived after Henry booted out the Pope, giving way to new ideas which got us to the modern world. If Islam had been defeated 1000 years ago, then the world might be a different place – the industrial revolution might have happened in the middle east.

        “Actually i try to see people as people, regardless of their religions.”

        There, in a nutshell, is your error. That is a peculiarly western point of view – which you inherited mostly because religion was dethroned. Someone who has surrendered their individual rights is quite a different kettle of fish. if you assume they are just like you, you are being naive. Assuming that someone from a different culture is the same as you is a sort of inverted form of cultural chauvanism.

        Everyone wants to believe in this global village – brotherhood of man, but it seems to be a wishy washy false idea.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        There, in a nutshell, is your error.

        Following principles of the Englightenment and basis of our civilisation is an error ?

        No wonder we’re in trouble.

      • DarkMatterMEMBER

        “Following principles of the Englightenment and basis of our civilisation is an error ?”

        “The Enlightenment included a range of ideas centered on reason as the primary source of authority and legitimacy, and came to advance ideals like liberty, progress, tolerance, fraternity, constitutional government, and separation of church and state.”

        I think you just proved my point. Enlightenment seems to suggest the rejection of Islam. An enlightened person would treat the victims of Islam fairly, but resist the unenlightened ideology.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        I think you just proved my point. Enlightenment seems to suggest the rejection of Islam. An enlightened person would treat the victims of Islam fairly, but resist the unenlightened ideology.

        No, the enlightenment would suggest fairly treating individuals regardless of their private beliefs – especially your projection of their beliefs – unless those private beliefs manifested into actions that were illegal and/or harmful.

        Key words: reason, liberty, tolerance, separation of church and state.

      • DarkMatterMEMBER

        Give up. You lost the argument. Islam is diametrically opposed to the western principles of enlightenment, so we are quite right to exclude its followers, not on a personal level but as components of the unenlightened ideology.

        If someone from those countries wants to come here they must reject the obnoxious ways of Islam and embrace western values of enlightenment. That is reasonable provided we actually value our own cultural heritage.

        Like many people of the left, you have corrupted and confused ideas about western cultural values. Tolerance does not extend to rolling over and allowing an obnoxious ideology destroy us.

        A year or so back there was a story about a blogger or poet in Saudi Arabia sentenced to goal for 10 years with a monthlly whipping for speaking against Islam. I doubt you would find any Australian who would not approve of extending him and his wife and children sanctuary in Australia. At the same time, we don’t want Islam here. That is enlightenment. That is the culture I want.

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        Give up. You lost the argument.

        LOL. You say that while peddling bullshit strawmen like this:

        Tolerance does not extend to rolling over and allowing an obnoxious ideology destroy us.

        Nobody is suggesting we as a society adopt the tenets of Islam, except in the fevered paranoia of people like you. We are saying Muslims who do not subscribe to fundamentalist interpretations of their religion, should not be treated as if they do just because you, or anyone else, doesn’t think that’s possible.

      • DarkMatterMEMBER

        “Nobody is suggesting we as a society adopt the tenets of Islam”

        I am not paranoid – just observing what is happening in Europe. I don’t want to revert to the Middle Ages with AK-47s. If you have ever dealt with fundamentalists or evangelicals, you would know that once the religion gets into them as a child it is pointless to try and reason with them. if they just ride around on bicycles and talk crap, then they are probably harmless. If they want to chop off heads then it is another thing. If we give Islam the message that it, as an ideology is not acceptable, maybe they will change –
        although that might be difficult if reformers face goal and a whipping.

        You know, if you could come up with one good argument it would be something. Instead it is just gainsaying and backchat and left wing high-horse-ery. Sticking your head in the sand and singing koom-bya is not a good immigration policy. Australia doesn’t have rabies because of our quarantine laws. Why can’t it be the same with ratbag religions?

      • drsmithyMEMBER

        I am not paranoid – just observing what is happening in Europe.

        Which… Isn’t replacing its liberal democracies with the tenets of Islam ?

        You know, if you could come up with one good argument it would be something. Instead it is just gainsaying and backchat and left wing high-horse-ery.

        If “treating people based on the core principles upon which our society is built” isn’t a “good argument”, then I concede I don’t have one.

        Maybe you can come up with a good argument as to why we should treat every Muslim as if they’re an extremist jihadi, and only take that slippery slope approach to Muslims ?

        Sticking your head in the sand and singing koom-bya is not a good immigration policy. Australia doesn’t have rabies because of our quarantine laws. Why can’t it be the same with ratbag religions?

        Because they’re all “ratbag religions”, and denying entry to anyone who’s ever had a religious thought is as utterly impractical as it is stupid. To say nothing of hypocritical given the existing makeup of our society.

  13. the real beauty of the whole ‘steerpp da mooslimz’ thing is that being Greek, I’m now lumped in as a ‘sand ni66er’ with all the other viewed-as-subhuman brown people from the mid east. I almost wish I was Indian or South/Central American as 1. I would be actually recognized as such & 2. viewed as only partially sub-human. Point being, Aussies can’t tell the difference between Greek and Middle Eastern people (and I’m half Dutch lol). Americans can though, which is odd. I’ll assume collectively higher IQ.

    • Same problem here, i was raised as a devout Christian , now I am a hard devout Atheist ….although I look pretty much middle eastern(Greek Ancestors)…but still get the up down look in the malls…..Race is been confused with beliefs and self merits these days.It’s a dilemma. I have lots of friends who are middle easterners and yet atheists by all means, yet being discriminated against sometimes by the looks.

      I think human race has evolved enough above animals to think that there is a GOD…but not evolved enough to dismiss this thousands of years “Religion” idea yet.

      Race and Beliefs are two distinctive things

    • yeah, it sucks that we’ve gone more backwards here. Re-Legionization in all it’s glory, I’m not sure if the atheism re-legion helps the situation – hence my Pantheist leanings (to wit Science is mostly compatible.)

  14. bolstroodMEMBER

    Ban them all, ban them all, the long and the short and the tall,
    The chinks and the eyties, the poms and the yanks,
    Tell them when they knock that the answers “no thanks”,
    Ban them all, Ban them all ,the religious and athiests too,

  15. So the argument you put forward here is “we must let them in otherwise they will get pissed off”..and then presumably, they will throw more bombs at us? That kind of sounds like an argument Neville Chamberlain would put forward.

    • I find the argument odd as I hear frequently that there is no excuse ever for domestic violence. Absolutely never ever. And fair enough.
      But when it comes to our Islamic friends we need to tread carefully lest we upset and provoke them and unleash violence on ourselves because of our actions.

  16. The economic & social impact case is to not only ban all Muslim migration but also reverse it.
    The case also exists with Asian migration as well but here I will deal mainly with the Muslims.

    The economic impact case is the Muslim intake is predominantly unskilled, highly welfare dependent and a low or negative economic contribution.

    The social Impact case is that Islam is a political military legal and social ideology – totally opppsed to our democratic, secular and social values.

    Islam compels every Muslim to jihad (the struggle) to infiltrate, subvert and then burden, overthrow & subjugate every non Muslim society & murder or place it under enslavement until ‘All are under Allah’.

    Sounds harsh but it’s true – Islam is open & explicit about this primary Muslim obligation.

    A Muslim can not swear an oath of allegiance to Australia or our values : Islam forbids this.

    The Muslim (born here or migrant or visitor) can only pretend to – to the purpose of infiltration, subversion & overthrow.

    Ah but you say “the covenant of Islam states the muslim must abide by the law of the non sharia host nation law”.

    No – Islam states the Muslim can only tolerate or (or avoid it) for the purpose of infiltration, subversion and overthrow : the Muslim can not swear allegiance to it or ‘uphold it’ / they are allowed & encouraged by Islam to lie (Taqiyya) to the goal of being able to enter weaken and then overthrow it.

    That’s also very clear in Islam – no Muslim can get comfortable & ever accept a non sharia western democracy or secular values.
    It’s not allowed.
    Such a Muslim (a secular or moderate or religious only Muslim) is not allowed to exist in Islam.

    They are called a Takfiri or apostate Muslim and must be put to death by all other Muslims.

    A Muslim can not renounce Islam.
    A Muslim can not partially follow Islam and subsejeft only the religious aspect and not follow the political, military, legal or social code (Sharia) of Islam.
    There is no such thing as a moderate or secular or non practicising Muslim. It’s not allowed.

    Who says this ?
    Islam. Very clearly and explicitly.
    In the Quran. In sharia law. In its guidance and rules from the mosques and leaders.

    And so the case is not only to stop Muslim immigration but reverse or disable the existing Muslim presence in Australia.

    There will never be ‘assimilation’ or ‘integration’ – Islam forbids this.
    No Muslim can befriend or have relationships with ah a non-Muslim.
    No Muslim can pledge or uphold Australian laws or values – only tolerate it until sharia can be implemented.

    No Muslim can tolerate any other religious belief or no belief either. Kafir or infidel to be murdered or enslaved.

    No Muslim can renounce Islam. The penalty is death.

    These are very clear simple explicit instructions every Muslim knows to be true and the rest of the non Muslim community should be aware of.

    Asians/Indians : yes, Chinese & North & South East Asian & Indian criminal and rural poor or factory worker slum clearance burden being aggressively dumped into Australia as part of China or South east Asia or India cleansing itself of it’s criminal corrupt, vice worker and elderly burden – to be both colonisation and to be our health care & welfare burden and not theirs.
    That is what is coming in.

    Peter Dutton : time to wake up and have the Royal Commission into the whole migrant & TR visa racket.

      • Neither & you completely miss the point.

        Islam is a ideology – a political military legal and social ideology – the religiosity component of sharia is just a fraction of the total commitment required by the Muslim.

        That the Muslim, whether born here or a migrant – will never assimilate or contribute or swear and uphold non sharia values is beyond any doubt / Islam explicitly forbids this.

        If you think Islam does not have these explicit instructions to the Muslim as I have stated then you are very naive and uninformed.
        Go and become more familiar with Islam, perhaps talk to a Muslim and understand some realities.

        The Muslims know exactly what their ideology and guidance is and you are foolish to ignore it.
        And while you are at it – look at the migration intake and the proportion of Muslims, unskilled, welfare dependdt, non assimilated even after decades and ask what purpose this intake serves and financial and social contribution is made.

        Finally – name one non Muslim country in the world that has has a successful Muslim migrant program and assimilation. There is not one.
        There is not one.
        Our issues are not unique. The core issues outlined have been the same issue for nearly 1,400 years.
        Islam is immutable, it can not be evolved, or modified, or ‘blended, or ‘sub selected’ into religion only or ‘westernised’.

        Islam has many layers of structure to prevent this.

        Muslim immigration would only ever work if we were to seperate or allow total economic social and geographical separation – and allow the Muslims to run their own seperate state politically, legally and with ‘no contamination’ from non sharia Australia or any other not under Allah.

        Because that’s exactly what Islam demands.
        Want Muslim migrants ?
        Grant them Tasmania or North West Australia as their own exclusive zone of total control.
        That is the only way it could work.
        History and the reality of Islam dictates this.

      • Jason – the Muslim who fled the oppression of Islam to hide or live in a non Muslim country is not freed of their obligation to Islam.

        The Muslim and their offspring are still obligated to Islam in jihad ( the struggle ) to establish total and exclusive Islamic sharia by overthrow & subjugation of the non Islamic host.

        In fact the acceptance of Muslims fleeing Islam creates an even worse issue in the conflicted Muslim and their offspring in having to tear down and destroy those who give them safe haven.
        We see this all the time in Australia, UK, France, Sweden & anywhere else.

        The Lebanese, Pakistani, Iraq, Syrian or even the Hazari or Rohingya scorned by other Muslims in not being fully Muslim or Takfiri apostates – quickly identify as being Muslim rather than Australian or the host nation and actually become the most fervent adopters of jihad and overthrow of their host.

        The reason is very simple.

        A Muslim can never renounce Islam or their obligation to jihad.
        Once in a western society they become ‘corrupted, muslim sinners, unclean, destined to hellfire.

        The ONLY redemption for such a Muslim is jihad – violent jihad in the suicide murder of a non Muslim.

        Actively sought out, coached and guided by their Muslim community as their own honour path to satisfy Allah and enter Allah’s heaven.

        This is why the vast bulk of Muslim jihadists are westernised sinner Muslims – they have no other way out.

        The more we take : the bigger the issue.

        The answer is to fix the issue in the source countries or within Islam itself.
        And that has defied human efforts to do so for nearly 1,400 years.
        There is no answer and acceptance of Muslims fleeing Islam just brings the problem into our society, makes it worse for the Muslim and channels them into a production line of violent and murderous terrorist acts against the truly innocents who were trying to help.

        Like you – trying to help – but without understanding that it just makes it worse for all.
        You do not ‘help’ anyone, including the Muslim by accepting Muslim migrants.
        It just makes it much worse for them and the conflicts and terror they are compelled to act out within our society as a consequence.

    • oh shiit Mike, I actually used to read ur posts thinking there may be an actual semblance of truth to it. But it turns out you’re just another white-power loser that couldn’t get laid in a brothel. Say hi to ur mum for me, she’s upstairs.

      This is what happens, when women collectively ignore your existence.

      • ha 🙂 Muslims aren’t a race, it’s not a white power v non white opinion. It’s about migrant intake and if Muslims are a suitable intake in our society. (The article)

        Here’s some questions for you to consider then.

        1. Can a Muslim renounce Islam ?

        2. Can a Muslim ever avoid their obligation to the full Islamic ideology – as Islam declares they must follow – including the full political, military, legal and social ideology and prescription of the Quran & sharia including jihad ?
        (That there can not be any such thing as a secular, religiosity only, secular, moderate etc Muslim as Islam clearly instructs this is forbidden – dabiq – no gray zone)

        3. Does intake of Muslims into a non Muslim society only result in a conflicted allegiance, conflicted values and highly conflicted behaviour – resulting in the Muslim, especially the Muslims born here eventually only ever able to resolve that in them seeking redemption via jihad ?
        (Pew research – over 70% Muslims will follow the principle of jihad including overthrow and subjgation of a non Muslim society as an obligation to install sharia, up to 95% of those under 30 years born in a non sharia host nation. It’s not a ‘dilution’ but a reinforcing and strengthing as an issue in 2nd and subsequent Muslim generations born in a non Muslim nation). As we see.

        4. Is there any successful intake & assimilation of Muslims in a non Muslim host society anywhere, ever ?

  17. ResearchtimeMEMBER

    IN a word Indonesia. The arrogance and disrespect by those who write them off. Indonesia is a young muslim country that is changing quickly. Islam is a warriors religion. And we so happen to be sitting on the massive powder keg in our back yard. We do not have the population to sustain massive losses.

    In regards to allegiance – Religion succeeds nationalism. Always has, always will..

  18. “Almost 70 per cent of Australians are in favour of a strong immigration intake”

    !

    No. Most voters hate mass immigration. Rudd said on TV “I want a big AUS” and the electorate was outraged.

    • Yeah, there’s a number that was plucked from someone’s arse. I don’t know anyone…not a single person…who is in favour of our current rate of immigration. And a lot of those people are old bastards like me who are suddenly starting to realise that their kids, like mine, may never be able to put a roof over their heads. One of my mates has his 24 year old daughter still living with him, even though she finished Uni and got a well paid professional job 2 years ago. Recent neighbours had a 28 year old son and 24 year old daughter…both working…still at home with them.

      • Holy cow!

        The daughters can rent though.

        I am surprised that the 24 year old has a high income when 457 staff come here to work for $10/hour.

        The states even let the kids of some 457 visa staff study in government schools for free!

        And the states can put a massive land tax on foreign-owned houses.

        No idea if the states have a separate database on home ownership to the feds. Because Joe Hockey did a few token forced sales of foreign-owned houses.

        So, the states love low-wage immigration as much as the religious Greens and the sinister LNP.

      • Yes, I’d agree it was plucked from someone’s arse. When were Australians ever asked how many immigrants we wanted?

        As for Muslims, I don’t particularly want too many of them, no matter what our immigration rate is. Most Muslims are good people but almost every terrorist act is carried out by a Muslim. Why do we need to increase the possibility of a terrorist attack on our own soil? In fact, it seems to be a given that a terrorist attack will happen in Australia at some point. But at the same time, why does it need to be publicised that the Muslim intake is decreased? For all we know, the government might have a cap on Muslims as things are now.

    • Spot on.
      Last figures I read was that approx. 65% of the population opposed the current high population growth strategy.
      They seem to fabricate the real numbers to make those oppose immigration to slowly accept that the masses want it and you better just accept it.
      That’s the problem- until the herd starts kicking and screaming at the next election and treats this as a major issue then it simply falls on deaf ears and gets ignored.

  19. haroldusMEMBER

    Sooo, I guess my proposed policy of levying taxation (individual and per group) on the basis of relative social costs incurred per religion isn’t going to get up.

  20. ‘The entire immigration level must be cut on the basis of the economic damage it is doing.’
    True. However,
    ‘Picking on any one group is dangerously close to fascism.’
    Lol.

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in now