@Nathan

<<A total of 58,000 (what are called) "illegal immigrants" in Australia have arrived by plane...
However (both political parties), the media and many in the community have ignored this...>.

NATHAN, NATHAN, NATHAN, NOT TRUE!

Where have you been for the last ten years?

EVERY-TIME --and i am not exaggerating. EVERY-TIME any discussion is had about those dastardly, sneaky, illegal boaties, someone, or a whole gaggle of someones from your pond honks: Whaaaa what 'bout those who come by plane?

Mind you, they dont really give a stuff about the airborne illegals they just want to push the line that everyone is down on their favourites the boaties. It simply aint true that nothing is being done.If you are genuinely interested (and seriously doubt it) please go back over threads of this sort on OLO --all the rebuts will be there for you to see :)

So now you can move on to the next one in the Mother Goose book of bleedin heart excuses :-p

Some interesting comments. BJelly, mass migration is obviously not the only tactic that the elite use against the majority of the population. See economist Dean Baker's "The End of Loser Liberalism" (available as a free e-book) for details on many of the others. Nevertheless, I think that mass migration is one of the most important, if not the most important one. It drives down wages, dilutes natural capital per person, and drives up the cost of many necessities of life, such as housing. It fosters inequality and erodes social cohesion. Here, the concern isn't that the folk at the top have more consumer trinkets, but that the people who have the wealth can use it to buy governments and tilt policy even more in their interests.

In general, people should be judged as individuals. If a poor black African from the Soweto slums wants to be a chess grandmaster and has what it takes, then he should be allowed to go for it.

http://www.enca.com/life/cape-town-man-becomes-africa%E2%80%99s-first-chess-grandmaster

We could probably take small numbers of migrants from almost anywhere without serious problems. The ones from the incompatible cultures will have the host society in their face all the time and will either assimilate or get disgusted enough to go home. The problems come in when there are very large numbers of them, so that they can form ghettos and behave like colonists rather than migrants. In the case of refugees, as Hasbeen once pointed out, very often the only difference between the refugees and the oppressors is who lost. They can bring with them all the cultural baggage that made their home countries such delightful places to live.

Again, I don't condone the behavior of transnational corporations (which often have little loyalty to any nation state) and what the US and other First World governments have been doing, but these economic predators take advantage of pre-existing weaknesses in the culture. See this article comparing Thailand and the Philippines, which had similar population sizes and levels of development in 1960. Thailand decided to pull itself out of the Malthusian trap and the Philippines didn't.

http://www.pp.u-tokyo.ac.jp/courses/2012/documents/5140143_3b.pdf

Do we really want to accept people who resort to violence and emotional blackmail to get their way. Sure they may be fleeing harsh regimes, but then if they behave the same at home maybe that is why they have to flee.
Let us just accept the poor refugees who do the right thing, they are more likely to be good citizens. And let the queue jumpers go where they may.

SPQR,

"EVERY-TIME --and i am not exaggerating. EVERY-TIME any discussion is had about those dastardly, sneaky, illegal boaties, someone, or a whole gaggle of someones from your pond honks: Whaaaa what 'bout those who come by plane?"

Why write so strongly? Why can't some accept the large numbers (or any numbers of people) trying to enter and live in Australia, coming here by plane - compared to the smaller numbers that come via boat?

If I said - let's accept those (currently in detention on Manus Island) and allow living in Australia - would you? Probably not.

We can't just leave people there or "deny" that issue. Nor can we "deny" the issue of people entering Australia to live here (in general - including coming via airports) - because of work undertaken at an airport or a department. Such work, clearly needs reform. The figures are high (entry via airport). Assessment when entering via an airport is difficult. We can't target tourists, families or business people. Compare this to a "boat person" - the situation is easier.

What's the difference, if someone - for reasons I mentioned - but arrives via plane and wants to live here, compared to a person who comes here via boat?

Also if someone has a strategy (for say terrorism), they've probably already decided on that, regardless of how they'll try to gain access here.

My sister currently has a boyfriend from France. He's had difficulties, applying to live here, whilst on a working visa. My parents were annoyed and I explained why many from well off countries wan't to live here or weren't accepted. The Immigration Department is going to be more accepting of people from poorer or middle class countries, compared to someone who lives in luxurious France.

Yet Australia has youth unemployment as high as 25%. So acceptance of "business immigration" should be lowered. We can't take every person from every country, but we can allow increases in humanitarian intake and provide better assistance for poorer countries to improve.

Nathan,

I will agree with you on one thing the business skills scheme is too liberal. I have seen large companies import staff wholesale from the subcontinent. When we have the unemployment numbers we do, there should be a requirement to develop and preference local people.

Hahahahaha! Onya Spindoc. Sick'em, Fang.

Another good post by Divergence. Well written and well thought out, mate.Another bad post by Poirot. Comparing Australians to Nazi concentration camp guards will insult he people who's opinions you seek to change. Your Australian/Nazi implication will only be
credible among your own educated elite peer group who have been conditioned by peer pressure to accept that any Australian not in their own educated peer group are reprehensible people. Your position on boat people is therefore simply exercise in preening your vanity. Your peer group need to believe that you are intellectually and morally superior to the Great Unwashed, and to the business class and establishment classes, who's members probably include your parents.

To BJelly.

Australians do not need to investigate why so many people drowned in their quest to queue jump Australia's refugee program, which few would probably have qualified for anyway. Australians elected in a socialist government who needs an ever growing pool of welfare recipients to get elected and stay in power. The ALP is therefore very accommodating to "refugees", especially from the Middle East, because they will become the sort of electorate that can be counted on to vote Labor.

The word got around that Australia under Labor had become another soft touch western country that would allow anybody who wanted to live in a western country a valid excuse to barge in. The people smugglers knew that swamping the Australian refugee system with incoming arrivals would overwhelm the verification process which would be to the advantage of their fee paying customers. So 50,000 paid their $15,000 and set sail for Australia in unseaworthy boats crewed by minors, and some of them drowned.

But the Australian electorate hurled out Labor at the last election, because to many Australians are beginning to see the negative impact on their society of Labor's stupid policies. The Liberals have instituted effective measures which have destroyed the people smugglers business model. They can no longer guarantee to their customers that if they pay their $15,000 ticket, they will end up in Australia