Big Business, Big Unions and Big Government in Australia all agree on a Big Australia. Big Business has joined forces with the ACTU to call on government to maintain current levels of immigration! The “ethnic lobby” has also put in its oar for continuing mass immigration.

What is obvious about these un-elected, un-representative, self-interested groups is that they are arrogantly ignoring the wishes of the large majority of Australians. The Australian Population Research Institute recently conducted a survey which found that 74% of Australians DO NOT want a Big Australia. Reasons given were: pressure on schools, hospitals, public transport, roads, affordable housing and the natural environment. Also, most voters were worried about the consequences of gr owing ethnic diversity.

The spread of the no-more-people sentiment is interesting for its relatively even spread across political spectrum:

Liberal, 73.4%; Nationals, 56.4%; Labor, 69.8%; Greens, 67.8%; One Nation, 93.9%; Other, 79.5%.

As you cast your petty little vote at the next federal election, remember that that vote is worth bugger-all in the face of lobbying and pressure brought to bear against weak, or corrupt, politicians.

Here's a link that discusses some of the issues involved:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-03-13/big-australia-or-small-australia-you-decide-our-population/9470156

I don't know from where you sourced your figures, but they certainly are surprising.

Averaging the seperate figures for the liberals and the nationals, it comes out at 65%, the most agreeable cohorts of immigration.

I think these figures need discussing.

dd,

The figure is 74% across all parties. Perhaps more of the Nationals are looking for cheap farm labour; some communities are already taking in Africans with rural backgrounds.

What do you want to discuss about the figures? I identified their source in my post.

National party figures.

The NP represent areas mostly white Caucasian. So can we conclude that white Caucasians are driving the immigration agenda?

Sorry, dd, but I'm not following you. NP voters would probably be mainly Caucasian (how did race get into it?). So what? Their objection to Big Australia was the LOWEST of all parties. I made particular mention if it; so why would we “... conclude that white Caucasians are driving the immigration agenda”?

It is clear from the survey that those “driving the immigration agenda are”: Big Business, Big Government, Big Unions, and 'ethnic’ organisations

One thing I noticed about Foxy's link was that there were no projections between zero immigration and 200,000 p/a.
I think a better number would be about 100,000 to 120,000 p/a with the option of saying no to people who come from countries with cultures and ideologies that are incompatible with the Australian culture.

Then we focus on managing the country on the basis of good policies.
(Which the government wouldn't know what one slapped them in the face)

If Australia is such a great place and people are busting to come here, then why do we accept anything less than good decent people?

And to anyone who says we don't have a culture:
That may be kind of true; but its also not exactly true.
Our culture is 'No culture' in the sense that:
"We sure as bloody hell don't want yours".
That's a culture right?

That's the real Australia, the one where we used to be 'kind of racist but not really', we'd put crap on everyone else, but it was never really based in hate, it was us just being 'us' and doing what we do.

Everything was more fun, non PC and real, not like this generic leftist nutjob society we have today.

Remember when Aussies put crap on everyone just for fun; and we'd let them put crap on us too; and it was mateship that seemed to bring us together, though not always.

Does anyone remember?

Judging on your figures, the highest percentage of supporters for a “big Australia”, live in rural electorates.
So to coin a phrase, every second Jack and his dog in rural Australia, support the concept of a big Australia.

Where the Australian culture is the most obvious, is in rural Australia.
Rural Australia is predominantly populated by white Australian culture Caucasians.

This to me, is a significant observation. I would judge by that outcome, White Australians are the most compliant with their own cultural demise!

dd,

They are not my figures; they are figures gleaned by TAPRI and, apart from the National voters who might assumed to live in the country, there is absolutely nothing to indicate where respondents live.

"Does anyone remember?"

Well, I do; at fifteen I was working at Enfield Locomotive Depot (long since defunct) when the "Balts" were migrating in some numbers to this country and they were allocated to jobs, not always with any sympathy for their talents.
We had, for a while, a renowned surgeon who was an Engine Cleaner, the District Locomotive Engineer (The Boss) listened to his qualms about possibly injuring his hands and made him a clerk.
Among my workmates were Ukrainians and White Russians and I became good mates with two Ukrainians and two White Russians (I later met one of the White Russians in Korea, where he was serving in the other Australian battalion).

We all, generally, got along fine and there was a lot of give and take.
One joke resulted in a visit from the police, the bloke who was given the job of getting lunches, and who spoke fair English was told to be very careful to ask for the pies to be (here insert common four letter word starting with 'f' and ending in 'ing') hot.

One of my Ukrainian mates was a natural linguist, he spoke, besides his native tongue, Russian, German, Polish and French.
He learned English on the ship and within a couple of months was speaking with an Aussie accent and with idiom and slang to near perfection.
His joke was to be talking to a local and when someone he knew passes to speak to them in their language; the surprise at this typical Aussie suddenly speaking foreign was worth seeing.

Those migrants after the war all (say 99.0%) fitted in and did well.

Dear Is Mise,

Outside of Australia's Indigenous People, we are all
immigrants or descendants of immigrants - some earlier than
others - but all with an experience of immigration.

And all these immigrant communities have made successful
contributions to Australian life.

So what's changed now?

In a column on 7th April, Mark Latham wrote scornfully of ACTU head, Sally McManus, “supposedly a confirmed socialist”, for “cheering on our ‘Harbourside Mansion’ Prime Minister” on mass immigration. He described McManus as “just another lickspittle for the ruling class” - the sort of language that denies the feelings of some that he has swapped sides since he was leader of the parliamentary Labor Party. He also emphasises the lack of difference on the mass immigration between the Labor movement and Turnbull's Liberals.

It is amazing that the union movement movement (its elites, anyway) are supporting the growth of overseas workers coming to Australia permanently. The new workers are just as likely to be reluctant to hand over part of their wages to unions as Australian workers already are.

We live in very peculiar times.

"So what's changed now?"

The background of most of today's migrants, their culture and their belief systems,

That's a big change and one that some are regretting and which most eventually will.

Dear Is Mise,

These people will adapt in so many ways over time.
The environment and influences in this country will
undoubtedly have an effect on them, and especially on the
younger generations who will want to fit in and be
accepted. This has been the pattern in the past. And it
will continue into the future. Inclusion and education plays
such a big part in all of this. Look at our history.

Is Mise,
Foxy said "Whats changed now"

In reply you forgot to mention 'multiculturalism' That was introduced by Whitlam in 1970s and really set in motion by Fraser who allowed the mass entry, against advise, of muslim Lebanese in large numbers.

That was the start of the rot as the emphasis was on diversity, the more diverse the better. Until then most migrants had one thing in common:- their culture was based on christen ideology. They came from war torn Europe and UK.

Suddenly we had people among us that hated us, our laws and our society. These muslim people have made no secret that they hold our country and society in contempt and that they believe their religious laws and ideology far outweigh ours.

Our grand children will condemn us for saddling them with such a diverse population and those that seek to overthrow our society and not integrate.

Yes, Banjo. Multiculturalism is the worst undemocratic evil ever introduced without our permission. People who support the insidious policy don't generally come into contact with the results of it. As with all problems, the people who actually caused the problems are the same people who should be solving them, but of course, it is too late for a solution now

…There is absolutely nothing to indicate where respondents live….ttbn

That is an uneducated observation . To the contrary, there is everything to indicate where people live in relation to their voting preference.

National party voters are entirely rural based; the stayed conservative of the monied and land owning rural gentry, that, (judging by the figures above) support almost 50/50 a big Australia, and no doubt, the Chinese chequebook invasion, gobbling up rural Australia!

That is actual evidence. Where is your evidence to support the stereotypical big business and its influence?

“National party voters are entirely rural based”.

Are they? You know this, how? You might be right, but unless you can prove it, it's just your opinion. So, there is no point in me arguing that one. I'll leave you to prove that “National party voters are ENTIRELY rural based”. It will be interesting. I can assure you that nobody would agree that your claim: “National party voters are entirely rural based” constitutes “actual evidence” as you so confidently claim.

Foxy,
Please look at your last post again, you have to be joking. Remove the rose coloured glasses. You could not possibly believe that these people will adapt over time. For muslims there is no evidence of cultural change. Have muslims in the USA or UK adapted to the countries culture and integrated? No, and nor will they here in Aus, or in Europe.

From the cradle muslims are taught to despise infidels. Hate is their creed. This is why all those we have in prison for terrrorist offences are second generation muslims. The attempted takeover of Cronulla beach and the Bankstown gang rapes were all committed by Aus born muslims raised here. Don't you recall the Sydney muslim riots with the signs that said "Behead those that critisize Islam". The baby in the pram, remember!

You need to open your eyes and see what is happening in Europe and ask if that is what you see in the future for our grand kids as the muslim population grows.

Not only do we need to reduce our immigrant intake drastically but we need to restrict who we allow in.

Dear Banjo,

It sounds like you need a big hug and I wish that I could
give you one. I understand your concern however I can only
speak from my own experience. I take people as I find them.
I know that there are bad people around - but they exist
amongst all groups. Fundamentalists of religion are to be
found everywhere, not only amongst Muslims. However, I have
found that most people want the same things that we do.
To work hard, support our families, raise our children to be
decent human beings, and live in peace. You may not agree
with me, however I do respect your right to hold a different
opinion. My father taught me that our hearts are like a
garden, there's plenty of room for everyone in it. Or words to
that effect. I think you'll understand what I am trying to say.
Anyway, enjoy your week-end and Thank You for your concern.

Banjo & Foxy,
Unfortunately Foxy has former her opinion on that subject
and does not want to have that opinion disturbed.
Foxy, many in Europe believed as you do, remember the pictures of
Germans holding up welcome signs as the immigrants arrived in Germany ?
Well that attitude is changing rapidly, even to the extent that some
towns are banning immigrants. I do not know the legal basis but it
appears to be the local councils taking the action.

There are monthly diaries of incidents and court cases. There is
barely a day missed in the month. The diary for the UK reads very
similar and cannot be faked as some suggest.

In France even the politicians are now talking openly of civil war.
It is not a widespread move but it has a feeling of the inevitable.
The attacks on police, fire brigades and ambulance whenever they
enter the moslem no go areas is illustrating the problem.
The areas are declared Sharia areas and French law is unenforcible.
The police only enter in large numbers of riot squad members.

"...Fundamentalists of religion are to be
found everywhere, not only amongst Muslims."

99.9% of Muslims are fundamentalists.

Dear Is Mise,

Just as 99.9% of all Catholic priests are child sex abusers?

I don't know how many Muslims are fundamentalists in their everyday affairs, but 100% follow a fundamentalist religion. Christianity is not a fundamentalist religion, and although there might be fundamentalists Christians (as described by people who don't know anything about Christianity), the people so described don't go around killing non-Christians.

There is no comparison between Christianity and Islam; no comparison between Christians and Muslims.

the usual ignorant rants about fundamentalist. Foxy also uses her totally useless comparisons knowing they are irrational and dishonest.
I suggest anyone who does not believe in the fundamentals of Christian belief are not believers. Anyone who does not believe in the fundamentals of Islam is not true to their faith. They have made up their own religion like atheist. The fundamentalist atheist have the highest killing rate among their believers. Millions or tens of millions of unborn babies slaughtered not ot mention Hitler, Stalin etc.

And here we have :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_terrorism

There's even more on the web for those not aware
of the persecution of Muslims by certain groups -
try looking up "Rohingya - Myanmar.

cont'd ...

As stated previously - fundamentalists and extremists
exist in all groups. As history has shown us.

Foxy there are fundamental differences; pun intended !
Take Sunday's even in Indonesia.
Their religion told them that they would be in Paradise immediately
the bombs went off and they would feel no pain.
So it was a logical decision for the father and mother to take their
children with them.
They did that rather than leave the children with others.
A perfectly natural thing to do.
They had no concern for the people killed, they were Christians and
were condemned by Allah who would reward the family with entry to paradise.
"Kill them wherever you find them."

It is not historic teaching, it is current teaching and to suggest
otherwise is blasphemy which is punishable by death.

That IS what they are taught.
True, many are not religious enough to obey Allah to that extent
but too many are religious enough to live among others.
Our problem is we cannot tell whom !

Dear Bazz,

Here's more on the subject of fundamentalism:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/30/children-fundamentalists-plan-teach-genocide

My apologies for the typo.

Here's the link again:

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/may/30/christian-fundamentalists-plan-teach-genocide

Can anyone produce examples of Christian-inspired terrorism. That is, killing in the name of the Christian God or Jesus Christ. Killing non- Christians, not just stoushes between denominations or sects. And don't bother with the usual pap about Crusaders, because their job was to protect protect pilgrims to the Holy Land, irrespective of what individuals might or might not have done. In other words, killing non-Christians because the Bible tells them to as the Koran tells its adherents to.

Foxy,
I notice that they denied they would teach children to commit
genocide. They claim to have been teaching about it in an historical context.
I would consider it would have to be taught carefully and to explain
why moslems commit genocide. The historical common context of those
times would be interesting.
The Rhrohingahs do not fit as they have been fighting the Buddhists
for many years. They have been driven out which is not genocide.

I think you are drawing false comparisons here.
We are talking of current genocidal actions as a campaign that has
been practised almost continually for 1400 years.
Where are all the Christians and Zoroastrians that used to live in
the Middle East and Persia. The same reason is given today by that
Indonesian father and mother as was given by Mohommad.

'because their job was to protect protect pilgrims to the Holy Land'
The fact that they added to their job description doesn't count because they were Christians invading other lands in the name of Christ which makes it OK and they've been doing it ever since. Given that the Christian religion is the bas tard child of the Jewish religion and the Jewish Bible has already designated a place for Christians which will not be to the dumb Christians liking when they find out their subservient role which, by contrast, will make the Palestinians rank beginners.

As I thought, no-one can come up with an example of Christian terrorism because there is non such thing. There is simply no comparison with Christianity and barbaric Islam. There's no comparison between Christians and Muslims. I am an adherent of the old adage: 'never ask a question you do not know the answer to'.