Cobber the hound - I think you will find the Gulf States which have money to be able to support them have taken ZERO.

The rabid right posters, the familiar tags are there, are falling out of their tree to attack you John. Nothing you say will ever convince these folks that Middle Eastern migrants are nothing but 100% terrorists, grandma included, living off the public purse ad infinitum.

These learned lads have their own set of "alternate facts" set in concrete, regardless of wherever they got them from, possible from a Trump adviser, there is nothing you can say that will ever diminish their rock solid belief in the evilness of you know who.

'The rabid right posters, the familiar tags are there, are falling out of their tree to attack you John.'

That's a bit over the top, Paul. Yes, they're right wing - most OLO posters are, and some are pretty 'rabid'. However, they're coming from a reasonable perspective that rejects the enormous long-term social and economic cost of receiving non-English speaking, non-Anglo immigrants en masse. Only one poster so far has played the terrorism card, and that's you.

Migration has comprised a large part of Australia's history, but we're at saturation point. The economy is over-indebted and in trouble. The advantages of mass immigration no longer apply.

The multicultural winds are changing right across the globe. Brexit and the Trump victory are canaries in the coal mine. People are sick and tired of having their cultures and economies stretched to breaking point by absorbing refugees and immigrants from countries ravaged by wars that the Western powers are largely responsible for. Even those who don't believe the West is behind these wars still strongly oppose the mass bureaucratic absorption of immigrants from war-ravaged countries, as the destination countries are running out of the considerable resources needed to resettle them.

Not only that, the countries of origin are losing valuable people, and their families are suffering the ravages of separation.

While I'm sure you are genuine in your compassion for Middle Eastern migrants, history has parted company with you. Globalisation, multiculturalism and mass migration are slowly falling into disrepute.

Paul,

The reason that the article is being attacked is that its argument has holes in it you could fly a jet through. Firstly the stats he uses does not differentiate between asylum seeker and 457 job applicants. Recent arrivals are predominantly asylum seekers, but those of 15-19yrs since arrival are predominantly those arriving with skills to jobs on 457 visas.

His comment at the end of the article sums it up:

"It’s often not until the second generation that the biggest demographic dividends” from refugee resettlement are realised."

i.e. the illegals are a write off, but maybe their kids will be OK.

The underlying assumption here is that the nature of the immigrants over time remains similar and therefore comparable. But this is patently not so.

Taking one example, the type of immigrant from North Africa has changed dramatically over the 20yr period the author wants to talk about. In the past most immigrants from that region were Egyptians. Clearly they weren't refugees although I venture most were Coptic Christians with some education and a degree of sympathy to western values. Now the vast majority are Sudanese and we all know (though some won't admit) the problems that lay therein.

Similarly, the make-up of the immigrants from the M-E has changed dramatically over time. Up to the late 1990s the vast majority were Lebanese and Turks. But now the largest numbers come from Iraq.

Using the same database as used by the author we can see that the unemployment rate for this North African/M-E cohort for those who'd been here less than 5 yrs was, back in 2000. a touch over 10%. Still double that of the national total but vastly better than the current problem.

That these changes over time in the statistics weren't even alluded to by the author suggests an agenda rather than a search for the truth, and that's never pretty.

Why can't the refugee industry (and that includes the government) just come out and tell the Australian people that, when we take these humanitarian intakes, we aren't importing economic assets but instead an on-going economic drag. The refugee programme is presented as though its cost-free and/or a net economic benefit when it clearly isn't.

The programme should, and maybe could, be sold on the warm inner glow factor alone and leave the economic lies out

'they're coming from a reasonable perspective that rejects the enormous long-term social and economic cost of receiving non-English speaking, non-Anglo immigrants en masse.'

Really? What does that say about our history and Australians of long standing who do not fit that WASP profile, who washed up 'en masse' e.g. Irish, European etc.?

I could list dozens who don't fit on the back of a cigarette packet within a minute, what does it take to be an authentic citizen of Australia?

Suggests 'blood and soil' to me, but that's just an opinion.