Ever since I arrived here I've been told Australia is "a nation of immigrants."

Except it isn't.

It is first and foremost a nation of colonists.

Immigrants seek to work within the pre-existing culture.

Colonists intend to supplant the existing culture and people.

The "White fellas" were not immigrants. They were colonists.

>>For what it's worth, it's my view that the majority of people so desperate to get here today will, just like the waves before them, only make us a better people.>>

Do you believe the arrival of the European colonists made the Aborigines "better people"?

Ever since the "white fellas" arrived the number one priority has been to insure that they are not, in turn, colonised. To that end Australia has a SELECTIVE immigration program. It only allows in people who, so it is hoped, will prosper and contribute to the country the COLONISTS founded.

According to Dept. of Immigration statistics, outcomes for refugees from some countries - especially Afganistan - have not been good.

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/settlement-outcomes-new-arrivals.pdf

After 5 years the best outcomes for the "humanitarian intake" has been from Central and West Africa, 51% employed, the worst from Afghanistan, a mere 9% employed.

It looks as if most refugees from certain countries will be reliant on Centrelink benefits for the rest of their lives. I have no information about how the next generation will fare but, judging from the European experience, not well.

By all means advocate a lenient policy but be honest about the likely consequences

Talking about floating your boat, soon, complements of that genius Phoney Abbott (should he be elected), Australia is going to Indonesia and buying up all the fishing boats so that people smugglers can't buy them!

Yes, soon you'll be able to buy some secondhand fishing boats that are guaranteed to be full of rot and either sink on a sea voyage or the engine will conk out. Sydney harbour will look like Hongkong! What a hoot!

You have to give it to Phoney, the Rhodes Scholar. It takes a certain kind of deranged mind to think up such a preposterous, ridiculous idea.

David G,
have you tried to enroll in some basic thinking lessons ? You'd be surprised to find what reality is all about.
I have spoken with blokes who have taken illegals from New Guinea to Australia. They both told me they take an average of three people a year each. They also said they don't really want to do it but it is their only means of making some money. So, instead of wasting millions of australian tax dollars on the likes of you we could give give these blokes 3 grand a year & by doing so stop quite a few boats. It is money well spent with a positive outcome, what do we we get for the thousands of incompetent bureaucrats ?

individual - You pay these guys to stop doing it what do you do with the next lot who step in to take there place or the next or the next.

Like the Economic refugees started with a few they then told others who told others now we have Economic Invaders.

But I agree with this part "thousands of incompetent bureaucrats"

I would have gone further and said "thousands of highly paid incompetent bureaucrats".

Stevenlmeyer

The original white settlers were colonists. About 25% of modern day Australians were born overseas, and about another quarter have at least one overseas-born parent. These are migrants: people intending to join and contribute to Australian society, not to dominate or displace it.

You say that refugee arrivals are not a “success”. It depends how you measure “success”. Compared to the outcomes if they had stayed at home or in camps, my guess is the outcomes are very good indeed, even for those who haven’t found work.

Some years ago I was involved with a group that helped to settle refugee families in Australia. Nowadays I see kids who arrived cowed and terrified, with no English, graduating from Australian universities and taking up professional careers. I am proud that we a a country which does that.

Rhian - Quote "I was involved with a group that helped to settle refugee families in Australia."

Only problem is most boats are 95% men only, who can't speak English.
A Gov't report had 85% of refugees (not total but for period of time) here over 5 years still on welfare after 5 years.

Do you want to support them for years and years, I certainly DO NOT.

To quote you again "Nowadays I see kids who arrived cowed and terrified, with no English, graduating from Australian universities and taking up professional careers."

I suspect you are exaggerating here, you are talking about at least a 10 year period here kids to Uni to job, the ones coming here today and for the past few years are not what you had then.
How many detention centers were burnt down back then NONE, just to list one of the crimes committed by a number of the current degenerates.

Rhian

We all know heartwarming tales of refugees who have made good. Some groups, notably the Vietnamese, did spectacularly.

Other groups - especially those from Afghanistan - do spectacularly badly. That's not my opinion. That's what Dept of Immigration figures say.

So let's do some arithmetic:

Suppose 30,000 refugees arrive.

Suppose every refugee is entitle to bring just one family member - a VERY conservative estimate. That makes it effectively 60,000 per year.

Suppose the net cost - in terms of various benefits - is conservatively $10,000 per year.

In ten years we're talking an annual cost of $6 billion.

Given the outcomes for some of the groups coming here I don't think that's an unreasonable estimate. Many will be getting more than $10,000 per year.

Sometimes you need to let your head rule your heart.

The difference between when my forebears arrived here on a boat and now is that once the ancestors hit the ground it was a case of work or starve. They mostly arrived with little and received little in way of assistance.

Yes they undoubtedly pushed aside the stone-age inhabitants to create a modern civilization as we know it today. I doubt very much that the mostly highly diluted and modern "Aboriginal" really wants to go back to the old days.

Now - the 'refugees' particularly the leaky boat variety expect, demand, creature comforts and money, aah yes lots of money from the rich Australian taxpayers. Asylum indeed.

Enough said ...

stevenlmeyer - A lot of the people coming from the region Afghanistan, Iraq etc usually have large families.

So when they get to bring the family the taxpayers have to support them.

Yeah, Steven and divine_msn.

Talking about the cost.

Imagine if the people on the boats were upper middle-class mums from Malvern requesting $75,000 perks every time they had a baby.

Why it could run into billions.

(Just as well that could never happen with "real" Australians)

"Many came, ironically given the current political debate, by boats"

Wow, is that because it's an island and planes hadn't been invented yet?

Immigrant nation?
Maybe, in 1823.
Those settlers had babies though. Born here, knowing no other land or people.
By the 1940s, those native Whitefella babies were 90% of the population.
Immigrants, bah!

Yes, Chinese came and weren't wanted.
That was one of the prime reasons for the 1901 Immigration Restriction Act.

"There were race riots in the late 1800s that made the Cronulla riots look tame by comparison"

A Girl Guide Sunday picnic would make the Cronulla "riots" look tame.
I think one guy bruised his elbow.

"The wogs, dagos" are European.
Part of the same cultural continuum, a related family going back 6000 years.
Hardly comparable to Asians and Africans.

Food? That's it?
That's all we get for demolishing our social reality, our gene pool, our 6000-year lineage?
Wow, a selection of takeaway options.
That was worth destroying everything for!

The Statue of Liberty is also European.
Given by the French (our distant cousins) to Americans (our siblings).

Liberty Enlightening The World.
This presumes the non-European world is unaware (darkness) of noble sentiments and wisdom.

One would think politically correct progressives would condemn it as a symbol of Eurocentric arrogance.
Typically, they have appropriated it (like the word "liberal") for their own totalitarian agenda.

Are women in burqas really "yearning to breathe free"?

Are women in burqas really "yearning to breathe free"?
Shocadelic,
Give them the freedom to do so & they will. Stop being a moron who threatens them & they will. You know, the greatest obstacle man faces is the stupidity of man. We can send man to the moon, to the bottom of the ocean etc but we still can't stop man from being stupid. We still have religion & Labor parties. Man still steals from those who can least afford to be robbed & still defends the fellow corrupt. Man's stupidity is man's greatest threat.
Next week we'll know if Australia is settled by more morons than thinkers. The polls say the thinkers are gaining round but one never knows what makes the stupid support the morons.

Poirot

You do not need to be a fan of the Abbott maternal leave policy to understand that - using Dept of Immigration's own figures - refugees from certain countries are going to place an enormous burden on Australian society.

The $6bn per annum I mentioned - it's a VERY conservative estimate - would fund the entire NDIS.

Dear Individual,

You keep throwing the word "moron" around.
And referring to people who you feel threatened
by as "stupid."
But you wouldn't know what it's like to be
stupid - since you've
never been smart. ;-)

Claiming that Australia is an 'immigrant nation' is a cheap arguing trick. It is irrelevant to putting people smugglers out of business, preventing deaths at sea and protecting borders.

In fact it could be argued in reply that since Australia has accepted so many migrants over the years -enough to require the building of three or more large cities a year- and has an extreme multiculturalism policy, surely it should be excused from carrying an additional burden.

After all, reliable research both in Britain and in Australia proved that immigration suits the migrants themselves, but otherwise is an an expensive overhead for the British and Australian citizens. It threatens quality of life and brings higher taxes to provide needed infrastructure and welfare.

Spruikers for high immigration claim that infrastructure for vast populations may be cheaper to provide than for smaller populations. That may be so, but the same spruikers are silent on the costs to the resident population and to the environment.

Australia is one of the driest nations on Earth and much of the land is either desert or very marginal grazing land that is fragile in structure, at risk from cloven hoofed animals and easily made into desert. It is interesting that those who demand an open door policy for illegal immigrants, as do the Greens Protest Party, also demand that young Australian couples remain barren lest overpopulation threatens sustainability. But then the Greens Protest Party also spruik euthanasia for the aged and in the same breath demand death duties.

That is why elections are useful. To remind some politicians that it is they who are the servants of the people and not the reverse.

So Poirot, how many "upper middle-class mums from Malvern" on salaries up around $150,000 do you reckon there will be having babies left right and centre after July 2015? Half a dozen?

Personally I think the cut-off should have been 100K max, but all the same this is a policy that will benefit a vast majority of much less 'high-flying' working women - the ones who'd normally vote Labor. So while I'm still undecided as to whether this is a good idea or not - your inference and comparison are way off the mark.

Working women starting or adding to their family have already contributed to National productivity and economic health and will likely continue doing so after a period of maternity leave. People who come here to suck at the welfare teat and likely have about 6 kids at taxpayer expense have neither contributed or, according to statistical data, are likely to start anytime soon.

Heaven forbid we put the welfare of AUSTRALIAN women and children first, or try to make it easier for the hard working people who pay their taxes to have a couple of kids. I mean - what Australia really needs is more and more children born into welfare families - domestic or imported. NOT!

Lexi,
All you have to do is prove me wrong !

what do you do with the next lot who step in to take there place or the next or the next.
Philip S,
I'm not exactly happy about the proposal but in the absence of other proposals I have to go with this one. Take this perspective, how much does it cost now per asylum seeker ? Then, the asylum seeker stays in Australia. Get a poor nalayan (fisherman) & give him 3 or 4 thousand & it's all over. Even if all other fishermen jump on the bandwagon it is still less cost to us plus no asylum seekers to deal with. It's an expensive win but a win nevertheless.

Half the trouble with this debate is the insidious internationalism of those who cannot understand the fundamental difference between people who enter our territory by permission and those who enter without permission. Entry without permission constitutes invasion, as any of thousands of armies throughout history will tell you.

There seems to be a blindness, an inability to see the other point of view, that makes the debate so poisonous.

It also highlights the political genius of John Howard, who, when confronted with a Labor alliance made up of blue-collar workers and inner city intellectuals, initiated a policy, starting with the Tampa, whose strongest supporters were the Labor Party's heartland.

The political elite often manages to impose a policy of which the the mass of the people disapprove, but which the people don't feel sufficiently strongly about to change their vote. An example of this would be capital punishment.

However if the elite attempt to defy the people on subject about which they feel strongly, the people will simply throw the offending government out of office and put someone in that will carry out the wishes of the people.

Some intellectuals suggest that the solution is for all major parties to jointly defy the people on this issue. If they tried that, I believe that a great mass of the people, including myself, would simply vote for a party like One Nation.

The Labor Party has failed to carry out the wishes of the people on the subject of stopping the boats, and can expect to be thrown out of office in two weeks time.

individual "Stop being a moron who threatens them & they will."

I am not threatening anyone.
Do you really think the mindest of women wearing burqas even comprehends or cares what "liberty" is?
Or cares about *my* liberty (to be agnostic, to be gay, to eat bacon), not just their own.

As for the boats, I have a sneaking suspicion those payments would be used to buy yet more rickety fishing boats to sell.
Kaching!

those payments would be used to buy yet more rickety fishing boats to sell.
Shockadelic,
Yo really need to think years further down the track on issues like that. What's the most likely scenario of NOT buying a few dozen boats ? I tell you what, it's tens of thousands of people coming to this country with no good will at heart. I bet you'd like that.
Buy a few boats which is way, way less costly than dealing with thousands of boat people, drownings, rescues & detention centres. Don't for one minute forget that the fisherman with the boats are more desperate than the people they bring in.
Many non-working, non-blue collar Australians in particular have had it so good for so long that the he luxury of compassion makes them feel warm'n fuzzy without a second thought of reality. I say let the proponents of bringing masses & masses of illiterate religious fanatics into this country by having a special tax bracket to pay for it all.

Dear individual,

The burden of proof is on your shoulders.
You're the one making the comments with
no facts to support them.
Clearly that makes for a political career
in the Liberal Party.

Lexi:

>>The burden of proof is on your shoulders.>>

What does the evidence say?

See:

Settlement outcomes of new arrivals

(Dept. of Immigration)

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/research/_pdf/settlement-outcomes-new-arrivals.pdf

See especially Table 11

It does look as though the "humanitarian intake" from some, not all, countries and regions are going to be reliant on Centrelink benefits for very long periods. Perhaps for the rest of their lives.

Unfortunately I have no data on how the descendants of refugees from "problem" countries or regions fare. However judging by what we see in Europe the outcomes are unlikely to be good.

The best outcomes appear to be for refugees from Central and West Africa, the worst for refugees from Afghanistan and Iraq.

I would have expected refugees from Iran and Sri Lanka to do better.

Had the Dept of Immigration been gathering these statistics in the 1970s I suspect we would see Vietnamese refugees fared best of all.

Dear Stephen,

You've jumped the gun here.

That wasn't the "evidence" that was being
referred to. I was being facetious about
Individual's persistent comments of
"Moron" and "stupid." Words he uses
regularly to describe anyone who disagrees
with his point of view. Especially
"academics." Go back and re-read his posts.

Dear Steven,

Ooops, my apologies. I was in a rush and I've
noticed that I mis-spelled your name in my previous
post. It wasn't deliberate.

Words he uses
regularly to describe anyone who disagrees
with his point of view. Especially
"academics.
Lexi,
I think you know exactly what I mean but you refuse to acknowledge my points because it would mean for you to have to concede.
Firstly I do not call people stupid & morons because they don't share my views. That is something you're making up. I only call stupid people stupid & I only call morons morons when they act like morons. It has absolutely nothing to do with agreeing with me.
What do call people who sit in a frying pan & are getting ready to jump into the fire ? I call them stupid morons. Just because most of them are academics is not of my doing. Tell us what else one could call them ?

individual - Trouble also is you will pay some and they will do it anyway.

Dear Individual,

You need to go back to your posting record
and re-read your posts.

What prompted my reaction was this post on
this thread which you posted to Shockadelic:

"Next week we'll know if Australia is settled by
more morons. The polls say the thinkers are
gaining round but but never knows
what makes the stupid support the morons."

And then you tell David G:

"Have you ever tried to enrol in some
basic thinking lessons?..."

And that's only a few examples.

I rest my case.

I rest my case,
Lexi,
Sorry to have to disillusion you but you have no case !

Dear Individual,

I'm not the one who's full of delusions,
or is in predictable denial. All you have to
do is -
go back and read your own posting record.
I've lost the number of times Poirot and others have
pulled you up on your use of these favourite
words of yours. You have to try and find some new ones.
How about, "intellectually challenged?" instead of
"moron" or "stupid." Give it a go.

so funny that all the leftie feminist who work and cheer for the ABC don't want other women to receive the same or similar benefits than themselves. Thankfully Mr Abbott was right on to the elistist attitude of the chattering class. Very hurtful for them to have the truth pointed out although I imagine many from that class many have chosen to be childless or alternative lifestyles. Those rotten kids just continue to produce carbon.

Another suppository of "wisdom" from our
resident self-proclaimed Christian.

Australia has a SELECTIVE immigration program.
stevenlmeyer,
What, and the muslim invaders don't ? They are hell-bent on multiculturalism ? Yeah ! By all means finish dreaming because sooner or later people will wake up but by then the bed's been wetted !