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 > A call for the big picture > Comments

A call for the big picture : Comments

By Conrad Liveris, published 30/7/2014

Immigration brings with it too many opportunities for us to assume it has but one dimension.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. Page 3
  5. 4
  6. All
I most certainly do assert that much of the commentary about this issue is about racism and you Divergence and the SPA/SPP, are its greatest proponents. I note the SPP has backed completely away from its more hardline policies of one child, then two child - and now its ok to have kids but we'll penalise you through the welfare system.

Why would anyone pay me to lambast you and SPP? It be like KPMG hiring an agency to attack a university debating club, so few are your supporters, so obvious are your links to Number USA, Roy Beck and John Tanton in America.

I'm surprised (although not really) that you're still trotting out your instrumentalist take on the PC, thinking, wrongly, that they were running a tape measure over the personal economic worth of migrants. You got slapped down hard - rather funnily I might add - when one of the authors of the 2010 report wondered what the hell you were talking about. I'm still wondering about your links to the ACF and whether you're a two handed glove puppet for them and the SPP/SPA (same thing).

Now I hear you're sounding like a Marxist, wanting to stick it to the big end of town. You poor buggers can't even work out whether you're Reds or supporters of the KKK. The latter me thinks. Good luck with the burning cross thing.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Wednesday, 30 July 2014 5:27:13 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
Divergence,

Yes, I am astonished at how easily supporters of overpopulation can make claims that “We have boundless plains to share”

This paper puts arable land in Australia at slightly higher than your 6%, and puts it at 10%, but it qualifies this by saying “Much of this [10%] is marginal with respect to water and nutrient regimes.”

http://www.ruralplanning.com.au/library/papers/rapinat99.pdf

Further it states “Once viable farming units are now being made into smaller less viable units and the use changed to residential-type uses with no realisation about the impacts of this on such issues as land degradation, rural land use conflict or the cumulative impact of the loss to production of this good agricultural land.”

So agriculture and native wildlife out, and residential-type uses in.

Not good news for farmers and native wildlife, but good news for the real estate industry.

Claims that we have “ boundless plains to share” don’t seem to be related to any scientific facts.

Such claims are just propaganda and brainwashing being used to create myths and misinformation within the public.
Posted by Incomuicardo, Wednesday, 30 July 2014 5:49:41 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
Immigration may have had some positives in the days when we practiced integration. Now with multiculturalism, it is all down hill. Still many locally born citizens were forced out of their suburbs when they were taken over by one ethnic group, even back then.

Today however, when it is almost impossible to find someone who speaks English when asking for directions in many major areas, it is really bad.

Places like Parramatta, Fairfield, Cabramatta & Liverpool, where English is optional, makes the country much poorer, & bordering on ungovernable.

ALL immigration should be stopped, until we have absorbed the huge numbers we have taken in, & until everyone can converse & write in English.

Things like drivers licence tests should be conducted in English only, to give encouragement for immigrants to learn our language.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 30 July 2014 6:00:07 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
Malcolm 'Paddy' King, "so few are your supporters".

So why are you so hysterically obsessed with a non-entity like SPP then?

You don't just comment about them all the time, you write an *article* every few weeks!
Get over it!

"Good luck with the burning cross thing"

And good luck with the 6000-cultures-in-one-street utopian lunacy.

Why is it "racist" to acknowledge "Australians", as they are historically understood, are White/European.

Nobody disputes that Zulus are Black or Koreans are Asian.

Zulus and Koreans are never claimed to be people of *every and any* ancestry.

But apparently "Australians" can be anything, despite the litany of portraits, photographs and films of "Australians" going back two centuries, that show White, White and more White faces.

That is no more "evil" than a record of Zulu history showing Black, Black and more Black faces.

We never asked for this redefinition/transformation.

There were no marches in the streets (even in the 60s!) demanding a broadening of immigration to include any and all peoples.

This change was *imposed* on us.
We have every right to object to it.

That doesn't mean we "hate" anyone or want to harm anyone.
We just want it to stop now, while a liveable future is still possible.
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 30 July 2014 6:41:44 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 exactly is the purpose of this article?
Just another chat about immigration being good without doing the analysis?

If/when you look at an issue like immigration/population, then you have to
- look at the environmental impact and if indeed the land can sustain further population increases
- look at the impact on social infrastructure. Do we have the necessary social infrastructure to accommodate an endless stream of newcomers? short answer: no
- look at the impact on physical infrastructure. Do we have the necessary physical infrastructure to accommodate an endless stream of newcomers? short answer: no
- Employment opportunities. Feedback from a senior Centrelink officer 2 days ago is that unemployment stands at 13%. So forget the official 6%. That 13% does not include under-employment.
- What impact does an endless stream of newcomers have on social cohesion? Is multi-kulti really a good idea? It works in some cases, it does not work in others. We must distinguish here if we want to live in a harmonious society.
- Would it in summa summarum not be much better to look at population decrease if we look at the big and future picture.
- Finally, leave out emotional issues like asylum seekers. They are a global problem and should be handled globally by the UNHCR.
Posted by marg, Thursday, 31 July 2014 1:35:38 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 exactly is your definition of a racist, Paddy? Anyone who isn't overjoyed with unending population growth (hardly the dictionary definition}? If I or the Sustainable Population Party, or Sustainable Population Australia, or NumbersUSA really were racist, it would be easy to point to something in my posts or on these organisations' websites that expresses hatred or contempt for people on the basis of their race. You haven't done this because you can't. All these organisations support a nondiscriminatory immigration policy. Their concerns are with numbers, not bad people. For example

http://www.numbersusa.com/about/no-immigrant-bashing

You are simply using "racist" as a smear with no content, roughly equivalent to "double plus ungood".

My quotes from Productivity Commission reports have been accurate (with links) and not taken out of context. They have nothing to do with the "personal economic worth" of individual migrants. They have to do with whether there is a significant per capita economic benefit for existing residents from the whole program. For example (see page 6):

"An understanding of the economic impacts of immigration is sometimes clouded by misperception. Two benefits that are sometimes attributed to immigration, despite mixed or poor evidence to support them, are that:
*immigration is an important driver of per capita economic growth
*immigration could alleviate the problem of population ageing."

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0016/113407/annual-report-2010-11.pdf

If your friend doesn't like the report being quoted, he should take it up with his colleagues.

I have always believed (and written) that the big end of town is driving high population growth. You attack me for being a Marxist, but don't dispute that (a) the distributional effects of population growth greatly benefit the top 1% as opposed to ordinary people and (b) that Big Business lobbies for very high immigration.

Asking why anyone would pay you is not the same as denying that your company is being paid. If we are as insignificant as you say, why do you waste so much time attacking us, to the point of telling out and out lies? Surely you have something better to do with your time and better targets if you go in for polemic.
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 31 July 2014 6:33:21 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. All

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