I am impressed. This at least comes under the banner of progressive thinking and problem solving even if one doesn't agree. Nice change, refreshing.

Today I read an article, smh I think, where it was suggested we need to increase unskilled migrant intake for the health of Pacific nations. Nice sentiment, but as Andrew eludes to, social problems down the track. Enclaving happens with any group but it can nose dive into a "ghetto" generally when those that inhabit one are not active in the workforce.

This is what happened in Paris and happens all the over the US. Once in this situation no-one is happy, no-one wins. And it seems no-one gets out. Loser scenario.

So if we do invite unskilled, generally are refugee, or Pacific Islanders we can expect higher crime, higher unemployment, less integration. We are not the same type of economy that thrived under such policies in the past. We have both higher educated, more competitive job markets and social security now. Both did not exist to this extent when unskilled migration was successful.

How do we solve this problem before it happens? I think they are trying now to place people in certain areas to stop enclaving but this in itself can be problematic. In religions for eg they want to be beside a place of worship. Also anyone would admit social contact with their own people initially can provide support structure.

So the answer? social services may assist in some degree, will depend on their mindset. If they are hell bent on victim creation then we will just repeat the past.

So I don't know, maybe allow a free for all and say, any problems (pre determined indicators) further immigration from that area will be suspended for a generation, to break the cycle.

My own personal desire would be for secular multiculturalism (if we must have one) religion cannot be compromised it seems and to live together we do need compromise from all, not just non-believers. Culture is liquid, can evolve, change, but religion is stagnant. One goes against the grain of the other.

Take Australia out of the article and replace it with almost any country on the globe and you would find that it fits many situations. Global roaming, for whatever reason, is accelerating yet we act as though it is somehow unique to Australia.

The most affluent countries on earth are having difficulties with the impact of multiple cultures within a single national boundary. This would signify that it is not a funding problem but one of significant social inconsistancies.

Countries based on religious fundamentalism languish in a monocultural society that invariably descends into the torpor of stunted growth and human discontent. Multicultural countries can explode from the friction of many boundaries and little understanding.

The White (insert a country) policy has been tried. Assimilation and integration have come and gone and now multiculturalism is the flavour of the moment.

Perhaps cultures, by definition, need space, free from what can be the intimidations of competing cultures. Should Australia remake the same mistakes that the world has made for centuries? It is obvious that I am not a big fan of multiculturalism, I guess.

Perhaps I am talking about integration, for the want of a better word. Cultures are not rubbed out but neither are they kept in a sacrosanct shell. The broader community will never be the same because of their contribution and they will never be the same because of the part they have played in the creation of a new one.

Perhaps this is being overly simplistic but the world is crying out for simplicity.

Andrew, I noticed a more conciliatory tone, and a lot less 'leftist dogma' so.. your political rehabilitation is well on track :)

I would accept reasonable levels of migration in the medium term, but only from various places with 'compatible stock' linguistically and culturally and religously. I know its a big ask to see such a policy become reality in this day and age, but I would not close the door to others, yet I'd make it mandatory for them to pass some kind of 'Australian History', Langauge and culture test prior to acceptance. There are cultural issues which we must protect, and the only way NOT to lose our own culture is to ensure newcomers are aware of it and respect it.

Immigration Policy could be tied to social and cultural compatability issues without too much drama I feel.

In the mean time, ANGLO/CELT/IRISH/SCOTTISH/NORTHERN EURO Aussies...

HAVE MORE BABIES..... LOTS AND LOTS AND LOTS of them. I've produced 3, and even if I wanted to I cant have more for medical and age reasons. But many of you CAN... so please DO so because if not, your/our culture will just dissipate dilute and self destruct with time as non traditional Aussies do continue to have a much higher birth rate than us.

LEARN you own culture, talk to granny and grandpa... look at our history, poetry, art -pass it on as a baton to your young ones.. take pride in it, but not arrogance. Rejoice in it, but don't regard it as superior. It just happens to be the only one we have.

A PEOPLE WITHOUT A CULTURE.... ARE DEAD.... they can 'look' alive with sufficient life support, but who wants to be a vegetable ?

As much as humanitarian concerns are an issue we all should be addressing, it is not the time in our regional and geo-political history to be undertaking large scale immigration intakes.

Go back a year to the Tsunami and ponder "...what if..." the effects were more 'southerly' and realise we Aussies, as lucky as we are, need to take stock of the dwindling resources on this continent. For one, the water issues are becoming more and more critical by the year. A massive increase in the major cities population(s) would be catastrophic. Our basic infrastructures are not coping under present 'worst case scenarios' and to add; the jobs situation is being misrepresented in the media and by government agencies per se.

Many of the the areas identified as 'trades' (needing more trades people to fill demand) and skills shortages are due to the pittances being paid to these workers. The government has introduced the IR legislation with this in mind.

So you want more money for your skilled job? Sorry we have prospective overseas qualified immigrants who will work for $5.00 - $8.00 - maybe $12.50 per hour and do the same job that you now ask $20.00 per hour for.

Granted, some so called 'tradespeople' should hand back their trade certificates and enroll in a Business Management Degree. (God knows we are just screaming out for more of these).

But just a minute there are no 'real' shortages, just disenchanted plumbers, refrigeration mech's, electricians, fitters etc who have had enough of the BS conditions and actually get more pay each week, cleaning out Shopping Malls with a whole lot less grief to boot.

Why would anyone want to put up with 4 years of trade studies to learn that on the job the Trades Assistant alongside you actually gets about the same 'take home pay' without the BS factor.

Employers need to take a long hard look at the conditions that most, if not all, skilled trades work under. Commensurate with the skills involved, then remunerate accordingly.

Can I add another issue not normally raised in forums or in the newspapers.

Though unskilled enclaved populations have increased crime and anti-social behaviours in the skilled sector there is also problems.

Not considered criminal by law but criminal nonetheless.

We have social culture but we also have workplace culture. I have found that many skilled migrants fail technical tests and are left driving taxis. However we also have those that pass the technical tests, if required, mainly in management type roles, but are never tested in workplace laws, ethics and the Australian workplace culture.

I think some Americans fit this bill, but to a greater degree South Africans. I heard one business owner actually say he would not employ a South African manager because they "upset and stress the staff too much"

When a migrant is charged with management of people is it too much to ask that they are taught Australian egalitarian values and respect for workers rights?

Or do we just throw away our culture to the vultures?

The current debate is just part of a fairly simple EQUATION when all the political spin is removed.

Overpopulation is the PROBLEM, Government-serving-Government Immigration policy is the CAUSE and Government PROPAGANA is the PROCESSOR that allows immigration to continue.

The PROPAGANDA: This article, http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/more-skilled-migrants-will-lift-economy-but-theres-a-catch/2006/01/16/1137260004193.html, states that immigration should NOT be used as an economic lever and yet that is precisely what Howard is doing. He is not dumb, he knows what he is doing and so should we if we expect to be treated with dignity over the coming years as 140,000 new immigrants and 400,000 visa holders per year are stacked on edge, primarily in the 5 main capitals and mostly in Sydney.

Multiculturalism is not remotely part of the above equation. Australia IS a Multicultural society, has been for more than a decade and WILL BE henceforth. All Australians know this unless they are intellectually challenged or speaking from both sides of their face. People of all racial backgrounds are averse to the loss of dignity and IDENTITY posed by economic driven overcrowding. Multiculturalism thus must be eliminated from further discussions of the immigration debate from here on if we are to weed out the ingenues and troglodytes, the self serving politicos and the schizos, and come to some potent analysis of the current population V infrastructure situation. There is no way infrastructure can be afforded to satisfy existing numbers in our big cities for at least 10 years. For example, Sydney has police force numbers set when the population was 2 million back in the 70s. The population is now at 5 million. Additionally, the physical SIZE of police officers is far smaller and less threatening to criminals. It is small wonder that segegated communities effectively have ther own police force, (nod, nod, wink, wink) in this milieu. So hopefully a 5 year moratorium on immigration will come out of a fair and balanced analysis that examines infrastucture without the government spin and without the political stacks-on-the-mill mindset that goes with it.