Dear Kit D,

I don't think we need skilled migrants, at least not in significant numbers. I think we are all being quite profoundly duped by the fear of a so-called rapidly aging population.

We may need a small number of specialists with particularly badly needed skills, for which we should be able to draw on any cultural/ethnic/religious base, notwithstanding the fact that in doing so we are probably taking skilled people from countries where they are more urgently needed. This small number of immigrants would be insignificant compared to the number and diversity of immigrants established in Australia.

“How do we attract them without multiculturalism?”, you ask. By offering them a better lifestyle and much better income than they would get in their home countries or other possible immigrant countries, which we do simply by offering them an Australian standard of living. Multiculturalism, or the presence/absence of their particular cultural/ethnic/religious group would not generally be a significant factor, for as long as the general level of acceptance and respect from the community is good, which it is in Australia.

Should we reduce or modify immigration in light of the ever-stronger views that multiculturalism is a mistake? Well I don’t think we even need to bother with this question, as we should be reducing immigration greatly for quite different reasons. In the lead-up to peak oil, with ever-worsening water supply issues, degraded soils, exhausted fisheries, etc, etc, population stabilisation if not reduction, is going to be vitally important. Immigration reduction down to about equal to emigration, if not less, needs to happen for sustainability reasons, end of story.

PS. Thankyou for spelling ‘aging’ correctly

Brazuca,
I am not surprised that Craig Blance does not make ant sense to you, rather like you make no sense to me, I operate on logic and common sense, and factual history. Perhaps in your case you never let fact get in the way of a good yarn...

It astounds me that no-one here remembers that Mr Nalliah is currently appealing the findings of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal, where he has been ordered to publicly apologise for religious vilification.

Let’s not bother trying to put a fine point on it – Mr Nalliah is a complete loony. The Catch the Fire website used to have a rant from him claiming that god had been talking to him personally, telling him how to run things when the Family First ticket got him into the Senate. Maybe someone still has a copy they can share. There’s a fairly good entry about him in the wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danny_Nalliah

In spite of his statement that, “I believe Australia is one of the most racially tolerant countries in the world,” Nalliah contrasts tens of thousands of racially motivated killings in other countries with the relative safety of multicultural Australia. Yet he says that multiculturalism has failed, blaming immigrants who don’t become “truly Australian” for this alleged failure. His article here needs to be named for what it is, a mean snipe at Lebanese Muslims.

Finally he says “The truth is that countries founded on the judeo-christian heritage (western democracies) are the best to live in.” I suspect he means that when he visits Japan, Taiwan, and all the other non-christian first-world countries, the telephone signal from god breaks up.

Brazuka, my 'complaints', as I wrote them, had nothing to do with Aboriginals, government or policies. My 'complaints' addressed a posting that proposed a past and present based on a barely lucid view of what happened and how. Your reply does little more than elucidate your complete self-imposed lack of knowledge about Aboriginal Australia and cause and effect.
"If he wanted to speak of his rights, he would first have to borrow the Judeo-Christian presuppositions that are the foundation for the rights edifice." You're not serious?
Your last paragraph is a true gem and should be compulsory reading for those that desire a refuge from the thought process.

Thank you Danny. I thought this was the most balanced article I have read of late, on this popular topic.

Cheers
Kay

Philo,

You are quite correct. In Australia more has been taught of Christ and his teachings than of the classical Greeks. However we draw extensively from both. Our society while incorporating a great many aspects of the mythical stories and the very mythical nature of the Herbrew is also deeply rooted in the analytical and logical nature of the Greeks.

My limited vocabulary and my lack of expression hampers my explanation however to illustrate the difference between our two great heritages the following website uses the words I hadn't:

http://www.historyguide.org/ancient/lecture4b.html

'They (Civilisations of the Ancient Near East and of Egypt)did not deduce abstractions, nor did they make hypotheses or establish general laws of the nature world. These efforts – science and philosophy – were the product of another culture, located in another time and place: the Greeks.'

We live in a system of Government derived from the Greeks, our society is very much technological in nature and that derives from the Greek scientific outlook.

We also live in a society that has adopted the basic rules of the Hebrew although of late a few seem to be going out of vogue. However many of us still apply those 'out of vogue' rules in our private lives even if the community at large does not openly endorse them.

I agree the teachings of Christ and his Hebrew Heritage have influenced the formation of our conscious attitudes but so have the Greeks with their heritage.

I also agree the Bible stories are a great source of comfort and inspiration. The Greek fables should not be dissmissed as uninspiring.