The Forum > Article Comments > Does the lucky country need migrants? > Comments
Does the lucky country need migrants? : Comments
By Bob Birrell, published 3/8/2010Metropolitan areas are not coping with the recent influx, so why encourage more arrivals?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 5
- 6
- 7
- Page 8
-
- All
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 5:37:54 PM
| |
Divergence, if you're wondering what this has to do with racism then maybe you should read Ozzie's many rants against Indians and Indian doctors. Click on the little red man at the bottom of his posts. Makes for interesting reading.
I see the point you're making but if you go back and read what you actually wrote you suggested that the Report said something which it did not expressly say. "The medical specialists are often accused of doing this. However, you would then expect a community benefit if the monopoly were broken, i.e. average income per hour worked would be rising, not falling." What if the income of the doctors dropped dramatically once the monopoly was broken but the wider benefits to the community don't manifest themselves in terms of individual income. Not every benefit to the community is monetised Posted by David Jennings, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 6:26:13 PM
| |
YES.We need skilled migrants who should first be required to swear a declaration of intending to accept all our traditions (political and cultural and religious)without seeking to impose theirs on us.
We have the right to select the ones we want and how many we want and where we want them to work. They shouldnt be dictating their terms and conditions on us. All European,American and Pacific Island peoples have no trouble in accepting these conditions just as therre are many Asian people also. Those who hem and haw and want to bicker should be shown the exit immediately. socratease Posted by socratease, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 7:45:35 PM
| |
Socratease
Re: “ YES.We need skilled migrants who should first be required to swear a declaration of intending to accept all our traditions (political and cultural and religious)without seeking to impose theirs on us” You intent is admirable, but I don’t see it working ---not in OZ. Can you imagine the hullabaloo if we tried to expel someone on the grounds they had broken such a pledge! Particularly if they had lived here for 2-3 years, and had a kid or two.The human rights industry would go ballistic – god knows how many new world order covenants it would be said to break. Why, we could not even expel these: http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/former-heroin-addict-granted-residency/story-e6frf7l6-1111115626092 http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AJHR/1995/10.html Posted by Horus, Wednesday, 4 August 2010 9:31:22 PM
| |
In 1948 there was approx 7.5m in the country; it is now roughly three times that. Is this good. In 1969 a bluestone federation house in Fitzroy Sa cost $8200 on an income of $2700pa forca 21yo. Shares were for another social group and through the fifties extended families and neighbours united as strong communities. In 1965 a 17yo in a bank earned 480 pounds pa ($960) and the dole in Adelaide in 1969 was $19pf (o did not bother and drove a cab). People bought one house; banks etc were extremely difficult to borrow from as is the case now. Increasing the population is good for you if; you can buy a house at 21yo; get married and have children , educate your kids at a private school, have a holiday at least once a year, are gainfully employed to your hearts desire have enough water and power without breaking your budget. Thetemay be others. However, if you think 'no, it will never happen" then population increases will only make things tougher. Our problem in Australia is thatcwe have never given
much thought to the future. In the sixties we were a quarry for the world and so we are in 2010. Where is the clever country and the education and training for kids in trades and allied industries; in the sixties companies had their own training schools - not any more. In the end immigration makes us better. As the population grows we do not really notice. But anyone who thinks unrestrained growth is good for us is dead wrong - everthimg is finite. Who would have imagined we would not have enough water for us all. And what else have we yet to learn and discover? Posted by sleepy lizard, Monday, 9 August 2010 3:22:11 AM
|
I don't dispute that a group of highly skilled workers, either through restricting their own numbers or by taking advantage of a bottleneck, might be able to hold employers or the community to ransom. The medical specialists are often accused of doing this. However, you would then expect a community benefit if the monopoly were broken, i.e. average income per hour worked would be rising, not falling. In this case, moreover, the Productivity Commission Report (not me) says that the gain in average income is disproportionately distributed to the owners of capital and the migrants themselves.
What on earth does any of this have to do with racism?
Amen, deteema!