The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Taking the sharp edge off our fears > Comments

Taking the sharp edge off our fears : Comments

By Andrew Bartlett, published 27/1/2006

Andrew Bartlett argues Australia needs to put some serious resources into multiculturalism and migrant settlement programs.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 36
  9. 37
  10. 38
  11. All
“Andrew Bartlett argues Australia needs to put some serious resources into multiculturalism and migrant settlement programs.”

Australia needs to put some serious resources into peak oil mitigation strategies in order to minimise the escalation of the sorts of issues that Andrew is concerned about here. We also need to urgently reduce immigration (and temporary visas) down to at least net zero, not for multicultural reasons but for reasons of resource demand and supply and overall sustainability. This is an essential part of preparation for peak oil.

The Democrats should be shouting from the rooftops; ‘rising fuel prices gravely threaten our ability to stop racial/ethnic/cultural/religious tensions from becoming much bigger problems than they currently are, along with all manner of other simmering divisions in our society’ and ‘high immigration is an absurd policy in the current climate where our resource base is showing grave signs of stress and one of our most fundamental resources, oil, is becoming progressively more expensive and threatening to cause massive societal upheaval’

Instead, we get from Andrew; “… it is a simple fact that Australia has and will continue to have very high levels of migration.” He is presumably also resigned to us never reaching sustainability until after society implodes. I have got to ask, what does he perceive the purpose of the Democrats to be if he has this sort of attitude??
Posted by Ludwig, Friday, 27 January 2006 2:02:00 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don: What to do in the next fifty is indeed the big question we should be exercising our minds on, rather than punching at shoadows regarding multiculturalism.

Leigh: The suggestion that there is some innate political advantage for one or other of the major parties in having high migration is just silly.

As I stated, underlying racism is present in pretty much all societies. Pretending it's not there doesn't change that.

Bull: I often hear that a big majority is against high migration, but I don't see much evidence of that. Also, countries such as the USA, Canada and (sometimes) New Zealand have also taken in very high proportions of migrants.

In response to a point made in different ways by Leigh, KRS and Bull, people should advocate for low migration if that's what they believe is best. It is better that people focus on that issue, rather than use multiculturalism as a proxy and spend their time attacking that. If you really believe high migration is bad, argue that case.

I happen to support high migration (I'm not sure if KRS sees me as on "the left" or not). I think it's very valuable and important. While it presents problems and challenges which need to be overcome (a role which a formal policy of multiculturalism can play), I believe the net social and economic positives of migration are significant. (the net environmental impact is more disputable, although I think it you assess it globally rather than just on Australia it would still come out ahead.)

One aspect of the above comments I would partly agree with is that politicians adopt high migration programs, but they don't really publicly promote the value of it. This should change. If we are to continue to have migration (as I believe we should) then those who support this should sell the benefits of it - and promote the facts of it - much more publicly.
Posted by AndrewBartlett, Friday, 27 January 2006 2:08:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Multiculturalism goes both ways. Not only are we an immigrant nation, we are a diasporic people as well. This also contributes to the cultural turgidity which seems to leave conservatives shaking in their boots.
Posted by cam, Friday, 27 January 2006 2:12:55 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Amazing, I was absolutely shocked that one of the people posting articles actually responded. Thankyou so much andrew.

I agree with a lot of what you say. I realise the language tests of the past were used racially, and I know there are proposals a foot at the moment to use tests for history and ideology (how democracy was formed etc). I don't think it would be a similar situation to the racial use of language tests, if, for example people from certain areas of the world were requested to take these tests whereas people with cultures much closer to our own (any one not from the middle east or north africa or parts of the subcontinent) need not bother, or be bothered. I see the difference between the previous language tests which were used racially and my (and others) proposal as being that we are discriminating solely on ideological grounds, and the ideologies we are discriminating against are largely found in certain areas of the world. Your point about using citizenship rather than applying this to immigration is probably much wiser than my proposal, as what we are really trying to do is to protect our ideology, only citizens have a say in this.

If it is not too much trouble (remember I was shocked that you even responded, so I understand if it is), could we get your thoughts on my point regarding some religions having an essential (for the moment) political ideology and how this changes the usual discrimination on religious grounds?
Posted by fide mae, Friday, 27 January 2006 2:18:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Well, When my Wife is threatened to have her throat slit with my 9 year old daughter standing next to her in a Liverpool car park on Thursday 26jan06, By GUESS WHO.MAN of MIDDLE EASTERN APPERANCE Yes, tell me Multiculturalism works.
What the F%%%$^ are they doing about it. NOTHING. So stick it. The time has come.
Posted by All-, Friday, 27 January 2006 2:56:10 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes, Andrew. Good on you for responding.

You find my contention that there is no advantage for either major parties in high immigration is silly. You are closer to the engine than I am, but I can remember the likes of McKellar and Grassby making no bones about chasing the 'ethnic' vote via support for high immigration. I'm not sure that it works, but I believe both major parties have made assumptions that certain 'ethnics'vote a certain way.

I think that you would agree that this is insulting to so-called ethnic immigrants.

On the matter of multiculturalism, I will say that any immigration should be non-discriminatory, and therefore multiculturalism is a natural product of immigration. It is the enforced-PC-give-them money to highlight differences and set up ghettos and make it an 'industry', that I think most anti-multiculturalists are against. And that is what the current and previous governments since Fraser have been doing.

And I think I did make clear that I'm a low immigration person.
Posted by Leigh, Friday, 27 January 2006 3:14:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. Page 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. ...
  8. 36
  9. 37
  10. 38
  11. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy