There is absolutely nothing to say the very mild requirement of immigrants having to learn English and something of the Australian history and culture will in any way assist in the ‘integrating of migrants into our community’. It hasn’t worked for those who have sensibly done these things, on their own, for their own benefit. My bet is that immigrants will comply, as they must, but will stay within their tribes as they have always done, apart from in individual cases. Multiculturalism is an official policy designed to encourage difference. There is no encouragement, by any political party in Australia, for assimilation.

Academics, politicians, their advisers, and other would-be puppet masters of society know diddlysquat about the real population; most of us stick to our own kind, and mix with other cultures only at work.

There is really nothing in it for we of the hoi polloi to get worked up about. We are still able to live our own lives despite the manipulators. We just need to keep our own counsel and be aware of the tricks politicians and their advisers they are trying to pull. The time might come when we have to say a big ‘boo’ to our ‘masters’, but there is precedent for them going to water when and if we do. Multiculturalism has holes in it. Some sectors are working on the sale of Telstra. Sale of the iconic Snowy Scheme was dropped. When people become irritated enough by multiculturalism, unchecked immigration etc. they will also die a natural death.

Provided, of course, that we ignore the sinister plotters and hang on to our democracy

Surely this effort, defining citizenship, couched in the manner of the agony aunt pages, with the parties vying to make a better all round list, is an exercise in not only mendacity but diversion.

Keep the eye on patriotic symbols, warm fuzzy debates. Propose means of making people promise to abide by rules and patriotic fervour not plant bombs.Every one will be tempted to have a say.

In part this is what it is about making us feel relaxed and comfortable. This particularly now the predicted outcome of more terrorists resulting from Iraq/Afghanistan, the idea Kelty proposed and was told to but out, awhile back, is coming true.

Much better to raise interesting debates, even when the subject matter only promises more of “We will say who comes here”, than worry about Iraq, terrorists that would not be increased in number by our involvement in Iraq, wheat board scandals and shifting trade portfolios.

Untut... we got bombed by Terrorists before Iraq.

As for the Cica article it is a farce. As have been several she has written on similar themes.

The values debate is required but what really needs to be debated is Multiculturalism and it's impact on our society. We already have people signing up for values to become Australians and it's quite apparent that these are ignored by many migrants.

We already have a discriminatory immigration policy (even if some deny it) but it seems we aren't discriminatory enough.

Natasha,

Societies grow when its people engage each other. That requires, fusion. Yes, fusion, perhaps a better word than assimilation, because fusion denotes a contribution by the immigrant population and the existing population. Fusion requires an absence of cultural obstacles to melding. Where you have a Greek Granny who would chide a grand-daughter for not marrying her own kind you have a problem.
(I knew a guy who was dating a Greek who had duck under a table, when his date's family walked in the door) If you have someone from Hong Hong with greater bonds with an externational community, back home, you have a problem. I guess the bottom line is one primary alliagence. Economic refuges with alliance to their pockets and guanxi connection, not their new country. Where does it rest?

Of course, the above is not true of all new arrives. Just the same, its not the odd bad apple, in the barrel, either.

Ho "immigrants should not be expected to pass tests on Australian values"

Innnteresting.
Does Ho agree that Australian values are important for society ?

Does Ho in fact wish to transform Australian Values into a Chinese direction ?

Why would Ho not want Australian values to be cherished by ALL citizens ?

Ho demonstrates many of those values in his own life, why would he not wish to be sure that newcomers also share those values ? or at least understand what they are.

Natasha. You did have a glimmer of truth in your article.

[What is not evident, however, is that the Australian multicultural project - as it is really lived, rather than disingenuously caricatured, harbours the seeds of the kind of DIVISION and IRRESPONSIBILITY, carried in by new or putative citizens of certain backgrounds, that would justify this kind of move.]

....and THAT... is what we are campaigning against. THAT...is why we desire to emphasize and reinforce the values which make our society the great place it is.

Sadly there ARE 'certain backgrounds' which are not compatible with our values.

There is an ironic twist with the Bilal Skaff gang rape incident.
"Bilal" was the name of one of Mohamed's gang who, at the invasion of the Khaibar Jews, brought the wife of the newly tortured and decapitated Kinana (chief) straight past the dead bodies (deliberately) to 'raise their grief and distress'. Mohamed then proceeded to arrange for this 'hot chick' to become his illegal wife.
Must be something about the name "Bilal"........and gang rape, torture, violence against women..lack of sympathy, cold heartedness ?
At Khaibar also, 'temporary marrraige' was allowed by Mohammed for 3 days. (thats code for RAPE the captive women, who's men lay in pools of blood, dismembered, guts hanging out, on the ground)

CULTURAL NOTE "I'm Australian, we call a spade_A_SPADE!"

If anyone doubts that the name "Bilal" would not be known to be associated with Khaibar, Hezbollah named one of their rockets "Khaibar-1". Ambrozi screamed out hysterically "Jews... remember Khaibar"

Perhaps WE should 'remember Khaibar' when it comes to scrutinizing visa applicants ?

Migrant children outperforming aussie born children can be explained by strict immgration policy: only the best applicants are chosen, not just anyone. The end result makes it SEEM like Aussies are lazy in comparison. Get off your high horse Natasha. The Australian base Anglo culture nurtures and cultivates the best out of migrants. Therefore we should be very discerning about who is let in. Afterall, most of the drugs that come into Australia are from international crime syndicates whose partners in crime are non-english speaking migrants and their offspring.

The next generation of immigrant children don't do much 'outperforming'. They soon learn our ways, and the author would know that if she got out into the real world and school rooms. What will be will be - in spite of the MC obssessives.

And, why should immigrants get a pat on the back for what they have contributed? All the hard work was done (OK, not by me) a long time before they showed up.

can the experts please tell us why so many migrants of non european descent prefer to come to australia which after all, was built on the very western values which some elements within some migrant groups appear to have a problem with. one never seems to hear of such migrants wishing to seek assylum in other non-western countries which could actually benefit from an influx of capable people.

There use to be an Australian race, being white Europeans. Aborigines were considered members of a beta race, and only the white Europeans an alpha race.

Since white Gentiles in Australia are now viewed as a beta race, a race that has to fear being racially conscious and be terrified at being racially aggressive -- I think true Australians are members of the sovereign races here: Jews, Muslim racial families, Orientals and aborigines.

All these people are expected to act in a racially conscious way and to openly promote the ethnic interests of their people.

Natasha, your essay is good to read, but too polite. It attracted the inevitable attacks: so far 8 out of 9 commentators have rejected your views. None have come up with any good arguments, but these are the internet equivalent of Cronulla rioters, and it’s going to be a long hot summer. One cannot reasonably debate their arguments point by point, one can only expose their stupidity and cruelty. I wrote early in September in this series.

Examples of academic prizewinners from immigrant backgrounds just makes these writers more insecure, more resentful, more xenophobic. I prefer sport. Take the four major football codes played in Australia. Look at all the non-Angloceltic names in Australian premier teams nowadays – Islander, or Italian or Croatian or Muslim names. True, many of these blokes speak broad Aussie and are apparently fully culturally “assimilated”, but look deeper. Every one will have an immigrant father or mother or grandmother or grandfather, someone he loves or whose memory he reveres, and would fight back fiercely if their dignity were directly insulted – even if these elder relatives don’t speak English so well after 30 years here, even if they know nothing about Henry Lawson or dogs that s*it on tuckerboxes.

All these boneheaded critics of essays like yours, mine, Tay’s or Hage’s misunderstand the key demographic fact. The issue here is the self-identification of a person to a non-Angloceltic family heritage. Whether we are (or are partnered with) a 25% or 50 % or 75% Anglocelt isn’t the salient issue here- it’s the other part of the mix that matters, because that is the part under attack by these aggressive xenophobes. Insult me, water off a duck’s back. Insult my mother or grandmother, you have a problem.

Howard understands this even if his dumber foot-soldiers do not. He dog-whistles his xenophobia, directing it at easy targets. He uses a Greek Australian community venue to preach his hate message against Australian Muslims. The unspoken message to his Greek Australian audience: “you’re OK, you’ve passed for now, but stay in line” … .
(end of part 1).

(Part 2 of 2 parts) This is how the politics of ethnic fear works in Australia – make everyone with a bit of immigrant heritage feel uneasy, asking themselves have they really “made it” yet as Aussies?

A partly immigrant family background is always a factor, whether a person affirms it proudly, as Natasha Cica and I do, or downplays it, intimidated by the politics of fear. In the latter case, it plays on the conscience and will eventually out itself in angry pride.

We can’t go back to the innocence of the 1950s and 1960s – Citizenship Conventions, Good Neighbour Councils welcoming ‘New Australians”, immigration officials who tried to help people settle into their chosen new country. Australia was another country then. A Citizenship Convention now would just be another cynical exercise in spin and fractionalization of targeted minorities, with Howard and Beazley competing to score focus-group determined zinger one-liners. There would be no sincerity or usefulness in it now – no more that Howard’s and Robb’s recent public meetings with Muslim leaders, spin exercises designed to remind TV viewers how “foreign” these imams look, and thereby to make Australian Muslims feel more intimidated and insecure than ever. We live in nasty times.

We have to find new solutions to rebuilding an integrated Australian community. Lawson and Paterson won’t help, they just aren’t relevant to Australia in 2006. The only possible solutions are inclusiveness, celebration (not just “tolerance”) of diversity, acceptance of the joy of “living together” (in Spanish, the word is convivencia – it’s a great word).

Almost everything I wrote here is as applicable to aboriginality as to immigrant heritage. People of partly aboriginal blood have had to deal with the same ugly assimilationism and exclusionism barriers, they have had to make the same hard personal choices of life strategy. It is time we all proudly stood up together, we sons or daughters of ethnics and people married to them. There are a great many of us put together, and we vote.

Multiculturalism AND assimilation cannot be both the requirement for new Australians. It has to be either - or.

Unfortunately for some ethnic groups segragation is the only viable option because their values and allegiances are at odds with our Australian values.

Assimilation for Muslems (from all over the world) is impossible because it will mean accepting our polytical systems and laws which contradict their Islamic polytical system and laws.

Three possibilities:

1. Create a new islamic state apart from our Australian democracy to accommodate our muslem citizens.
2. Force (not just take their word) all Muslems to submit to our democratic laws and freedoms.
3. Become all Muslems and live happily together in the New Islamic Republic of Australia.

This is an extremely serious issue and I would like our government to stop being hypocritical and attack the problem head on.

Islam is not just a race or ethnic group - It is a polytical entity that made it very clear that (it) will dominate our society given half a chance.

Tony Kevin makes as much sense as his useless mother and grandmother.Do you hope to include Jack Van Tongeren and Jim Saleam in your migrant vote? What about John Pasquarelli (former advisor to one nation)? Jack is infamous for his indonesian heritage as is Jim for his Turkish background and both are extreme anti-migrant activists. What about forum regular Boazy with an indonesian wife, whose views often contradict your own?

Your revolutionary ideas are passe. Get your head out of the sand and stop dreaming, mate.

What kind of a choice is that? Do we value migrants or not?

Well, in such a blunt sense, yes, and no.

Those who try to turn legitimate concerns regarding sub-sections of the Australian family into racist slogans are deceiving.

Many Australians are happy with the role European migrants have played, but not others. But why is this? Because they're rednecks? Or because they hate rednecks?

It's the latter.

People are entitled to ask what benefit it is of having an Islamic community, or an Asian community, given that most are largely unintegrated culturally.

Some are angry that with large scale immigration from the third world, we've seen our suburbs being turned into the drug capitals, the crime capitals of the country.

Australians, for all their theatrics of the larrikin spirit, and idol worship of the Ned Kelly's, are a remarkably law abiding people.

We've never liked the idea of military coup's, large scale widespread corruption, branch-stacking vote rigging, nepotism, religious leadership, dictators, ethnic tribal politics.

To be honest, I believe that all non-European cultures have to offer are food. I don't mean that in a condescending way, and I say the same about European culture before the Enlightenment.

But as for morality, values, no societies, no cultures, come close to the west. This is why all human traffic flows are directed here, and is why, I believe, that the west has a mandate to turn such cultures, such nations, into western ones.

This is different than to say everyone should be white, or like they are in Darfur, Arab.

But when it comes to our values, there can be no exceptions to human rights. The idea of child brides in Muslim cultures sickens westerners, as it does when we hear of obscure Christian sects that do the same.

Sorry, apart from food, and learning about history, I believe non-western cultures have nothing to offer..........

That makes me not racist, but a humanist. I, as is most of the west, am above race, our values of human rights are universal.

Muslims, for example, have a system of rules for them, and another sub-standard set for Dhimmi's, as Muslims consider themselves superior.

Westerners don't, although in the sense that our morals are superior, yes.

One has only to look at human traffic flows to see that everyone else agrees.

The problem is that many inherently racist tribal cultures want to hang on to their cultures in light of the unconquerable dominance of western culture, of entertainment, of music, of art, of dress, but more importantly of meaning - philosophy, ideas.

Everywhere else is stagnant in this sense, even Asia, where their grasp of western style business has been full-on.

However, Japan never invents anything because it's culture is closed. It manufactures, but doesn't pioneer. This is a direct result of the freedoms of the west which encourage this.

I believe that, even if extremist Muslims defeated the west, slaughtered us all, and the whole world was under their idea of heaven, the Taliban, the human spirit would smash it apart eventually.

Women would want equal rights, just as they did in the west. People long for freedom, and although leftists laugh that off as though one's idea of freedom is McDonalds selling hamburgers, well yes, that is part of it.

Ever heard of a war between Pepsi fans and Cola fans? I guess their weapons of choice could be their fangs, but that's a different story.

Muslim extremists are afraid, as people afraid react violently. It's never been about being white, it's about culture.

The whole world will be Asian looking in a thousand years, Indian & Chinese, but who cares if they all adopt western values?

Western ideology is not a stagnate concept. It will change depending on either side of the political pendulum, hence the processes of democracy.

It is a sad state when one claims that their way of life is superior to any other culture. Even sadder is when one cannot recognize that to judge another human being on their nationality or chosen culture and to then reduce that reality to something less than your own, is racism.

To claim that human traffic flows (i.e. migration to the west) is a sound example of the superiority of western culture over any other is ludicrous.
These so called Non-European nations that have experienced large amounts of refugees in most recent times are largely linked to social upheaval or warfare. In most cases you will find this comes in some way or another in the form of exploitation of natural resources by Western nations. The abuse of power by the West namely the United States and Bush, the terrorism of Israel in Lebanon will only continue to fuel hatred within Arab nations. Injustice is the fuel for extremism, and until the West is accountable for its abuses of power, extremism will continue.

Ironically when the vulnerable are exploited and large numbers of refugee migration results in ‘human traffic’ trends in the west, people like Benjamin can legitimize their superiority by saying, ‘Ah ha! See you came here because our values are better! Right

I guess if you think about it the real australians are the aboriginals (as they where here first). Its also a fact that some aboriginals dont speak english , useing John Howards logic then they shouldnt be here ..seems a strange double standard that migrants are expected too learn english yet our original inhabitants are not ( not that I would expect them too either as they are the original inhabitants ) ,maybee us "real" Australians should learn a aborignal toungue.

LOL, thanks for the laugh Jules. What's that saying? There are none so blind.... seems to me you've swallowed a lot of propaganda or is it you are just too biased to accept reality.

tassie... Aboriginals didn't have one language. There were many many tribes some no bigger than a family. BTW, they weren't the first Australians... in fact, many still don't consider themselves Australian. happy reading.... get back to me when you are up to speed.

T800,

Genetics suggest there were four migrations of pre-European, different from each other. So, three of the four were invaders, like the Europeans. If memory serves, there was a 15,000 year break between the first migration and the second.

When ocean levels were lower, it was possible to more readily move down Asia/S.E.A. along wide beached areas.

There would have been many languages as you say. The idea of an "aboriginal nation" is a myth. There 300,000 to one million peoples here at the time of European occupation. These folks would have been diverse as Icelanders from Arabians. Australia was a nomadic Europe, before the Whites. Rites and ceremonies were traded. Perhaps, many societies were mystically/spiritally based.

Oliver,

Why do you say that "economic refugees" are only interested in money? a lot of them actually escape form situations which are truly terrible, for many it is not about getting a bigger car, it's about not starving.

They do not count as refugees because the Convention only includes very limited grounds for asylum, you have to be persecuted and for certain specific reasons, too, so if you are simply starving you don't qualify. But that doesn't make starving that pleasant, does it?

And anyway, I thought that economic growth and seizing the opportunities for a better life was part of western values, don't we pride ourselves of our entreprenurial spirit, or not?

I was reading some time ago of a failed asylum seeker in the UK who, when threatened with deportation, committed suicide so that his teen-age son could stay in the UK and have a decent life, are these the kind of people you think only care about money?

Has it occured to anyone that 'traffic to the West" is part of a divine plan to invade and reclaim all available land for Allah?

The supremist ideology of Islam and our egaliterian way of approaching the issue of race and values are like oil and water - the "fusion" will never happen under normal circumstances.

Hells Angel,

Well said re Tony Kevin! But, he has his head irretrievably jammed in a much darker and nastier place than the sand.

Schmuck,

I did not mean imply that all immigrants are economic refugees.

The main point I am trying to make is that civilizations grow when societies fuse, adapt and progress. If an immigrant population [Greek grannies and arranged marriages, above]are not willing to participate and create enclaves, it is counter-productive. I have lived offshore and by comparison see Australia as open [which is good]. But we don't want countries within countries.

Immigrants, remember your historical roots, by all means, but move on to the New World, and leverage the oppenness in Oz to "mutual" advantange.

My grandparents are Scottish/Irish but I am Australian [as were my parents]. I\perhaos, if I had Lebonese parents, like a student of my wife, I might say [as did an Australian-born student] that I am Lebonese. Yes! the student was born in Australia and called herself a "Lebonese". True.

Its not to do with race, its about moving-on and not taking a priori positions, against the flow of the best interests of Australia.

Schmuck,

ECONOMIC REFUGEES

I had a look back. I saw my comment. Here, I was not making a global comment about all refugees. Rather, people from Hong Kong and Singapore, who come to Oz for a few years, gain citizenship, then go "home". And home ain't Oz. Auastralia is not their heartland, it is an insurance policy.

Let's not forget that all of us are immigrants-yes even full blood aboriginals.Humans never evolved here-probably never would.

The pre-goldrush settlers were a mix of obviously reluctant convicts and guards and land hungry opportunists.Then the get-rich-quick goldrushers and camp followers--etc etc.Social pecking orders evolved along lines of
who arrived first axcept in the cases of aboriginals who arrived first,and the British who arrived second.The very early social pecking order often put Irish Convicts below Aboriginals.

HOWEVER the nature of humans is to accept those we get to like.We may have to overcome our feelings of lets say disconnectedness with them.If eventually we see we're rowing the boat in the same direction,there's an eventual mutual respect and even friendship when the situation is ideal-same as ever.

Governments can distort human nature by setting unpredictable conditions for human interplay.Hells Angel makes the big point we have only been picking the"best" immigrants since about 1985.

Not only has this made our average citizen statistically lesser,it has had a big influence on raising the price of urban housing and commercial rents-to the detriment OF ALL.

This alone can lead to the feeling we are NOT indeed rowing in the same direction.Combine this with religious fanaticism used as an excuse to vent feelings of frustration and we see our problems-big money problems,big resentment problems.

Jules 21 says that "ironically when the vulnerable are exploited and large numbers of refugee migration results in ‘human traffic’ trends in the west, people like Benjamin can legitimize their superiority by saying, ‘Ah ha! See you came here because our values are better!"

What, western values aren't superior?

So your fine with having REAL multiculturalism then, not the watered down version we presently practice (tacit assimilationalists, which is what all leftists are as I have never yet met one that will accept living next to people who don't share human rights) where Sharia rules over the Muslim quarter in Bankstown?

Can you, instead of a cheap quip like "right!", actually show me how the principles of human rights are not superior to Sharia, or any other cultural value system used by humans?

Are you so blind that you can't see past the fact that it was created by Europeans, so see it as an exclusively European thing? Everyone should be considered human beings first and foremost mate.

You're not a cultural relativist are you?

If so, come back when you can think...

You betray yourself by thinking in terms of superior and inferior as I don't think I am superior, as you say, I only believe our values are superior.

This in no way likens them to white people, on the contrary, they are HUMAN values as opposed to tribal values specific to some particular culture at a particular time. My values are UNIVERSAL, which is why everyone wants to live under them!

Do you not see this! Or do you think of people in terms of tribes, colours, races, tribes?

How does the west exploit third world nations?

Can you give examples, or are you just, like most leftists, a slogan?

Keep in mind that doing business with a dictator who has ruthlessly suppressed those of other tribes (the natural state of third world cultures) doesn't mean we are exploiting them.

Or should we kill such dictators and impose democracy? Should backward Arab states, who control a vital resource, really be allowed to play GOD with a resource the whole world needs, should we put up with their instability?

Why don't you want them to live under value systems like the wests?

Are you a racist?

Don't you believe that all those people who are subjugated and exploited by stronger tribes want to be subjugated?

In the west, all people are considered equal under the law. There isn't one law for Muslims, and a harsher law for Christians as there is in most Muslim lands.

Isn't this good to get rid of?

Do you think because NIKE or REEBOK go to China that they are exploiting them?

Western companies go to such nations because they don't value life, this is true, but they don't have the power to tell the government to make wages higher.

What you will notice is that the middle-class in such countries don't care about the poor, they are the epitomy of capitalism, like the Taliban - where a war widow can be spat on in the street for begging for money to eat.

In west, we look after the poor. We are humanitarian.

Do you think child miners in England just refused to go to work one day when they were exploited during the industrial revolution?

Things changed because the people cared about those less fortunate than themselves.

We noticed this during the tsunami with western nations, both GOVt and ppl, donating heaps to Muslim Indonesian victims. All non-western cultures, inc. wealthy oil states, donated nothing.

Nice people.

Carbonari,

"The very early social pecking order often put Irish Convicts below Aboriginals." Can you elaborate on your point, please? Should be intresting.

Fully aware that the treat of convicts was cruel, even sadistic; but did not this about the Irish convicts. The British mistreated the Irish in Ireland too, with restrictions ongaining an education. It also touches on the matter of The Crown. I have never heard any Aboriginal Australian slam QE II or her dead relatives.

The Squatters behaved shamefully.

Robert Hughes "The Fatal Shore" detailed the pecking order in
1788--1830 Colony in NSW.Perceiving the cruel disdain with which their
captors treated the Irish political prisoners and the relatively
benign official attitude to Aboriginals [the abuses of the squatters was to happen later]the camp followers found a niche for themselves above the bottom.The early Governors had orders not to treat the native peoples badly,were meant to foster useful contact.Things got way out of control with the Goldrush and land rush.

Regrettably, I also share no such conclusion of an article discussed, which is
"Either we value the migrants who have made this country richer, or we don't".

Recently preparing a submission to Mr Robb's changes offered, would say
"Either Anglo-Celtic (Anglo-Saxon as used to describing more frequently round a globe) majority values the others or it does not".

Although English is of no doubt a substantial common denominator, its perfectness is of a little help to job seekers of biological backgrounds different from the UK-originated.

CARBONARI,

Thank you. I do know the title. I should read the book.

ALL,

In socio-biology, there are the terms "kin altruism" and "by-product mutualism". The former is very familial, and, clan and dialect group based, the latter means fusing to work cooperatively towards shared goals. It might be politically incorrect but not all societies mix well with other societies. It is not a case of one trying to avoid immigrants of a race or skin colour, rather kin altruism does not go well, in a pluralistic, mutualistic democracy. We are importing the very cultural traits that are divisive. Anglo/Celts might be willing to accept others, but to many societies (read immigrants)others are "outsiders", including the majority in their new country.

We want fusion not fragmentation. Read fusion to mean that the Anglo/Celts can change too.