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 > Immigrant nation > Comments

Immigrant nation : Comments

By Ross Elliott, published 23/8/2013

When floating your boat, Australia's been a destination for thousands of years. So what's changed?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All
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.
Posted by stevenlmeyer, Saturday, 24 August 2013 8:35:08 AM
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
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. ;-)
Posted by Lexi, Saturday, 24 August 2013 10:59:58 AM
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
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.
Posted by onthebeach, Saturday, 24 August 2013 11:50:34 AM
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
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!
Posted by divine_msn, Saturday, 24 August 2013 4:02:30 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
Lexi,
All you have to do is prove me wrong !
Posted by individual, Saturday, 24 August 2013 10:23:26 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
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.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 24 August 2013 10:29:21 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. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. All

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