What a breath of fresh air.

We live in an era of globalisation. Free movement of money goods and labour. It is time that the pollies woke up to it.

Unworldy nonsense from a youth who will live to regret his current immature beliefs.

Typical comment Leigh. No ideas of your own and no rebuttal of the author's challenging ideas. All you can come up with is name calling: 'unworldy nonsense', 'immature beliefs', 'a youth'.

Why not repect Philippe Legrain as a person but demonstrate by superior argument or better evidence that his views are mistaken?

I have missed Leighs vitriol - what on earth is "unwordly nonsense" what is "wordly"

In a crude sense people are commodities - at the very least they carry commodities with them - skills, innovation, usable body parts - all manner of things.

it is counter intuitive as the young author points out that if everything else is globalised why not people movement.

Then there is the fact places like Australia underutilise exisiting space - if we think we can keep the vast tracts of the hinter to land to ourselves we are fools - they will come.

Leigh, I'm curious - are you opposed to immigration the world over, or just immigration to Australia? I mean, do you have the same problem with Africans migrating to Europe, Americans to Canada etc?

There are two problems with immigration. One is that logic tells you that there is an optimum population for Australia, and that if we exceed that level we will have problems with resources (such as water?).

The second problem is that it is not good for a country to acquire a minority that does not integrate into the broader community. This is what sems to be happening with many of our muslim immigrants.

The example of the UK, where British born children of immigrants were responsible for the recent bombing outrage, shows that immigration can be a direct security threat when their cultural group is in conflict with us.

The real problem, of course, is world overpopulation. Until this is addressed, there will be continuing pressure on immigration.

The best way we can assist developing countries is to outsource our labor needs to them so that the work can be performed by people in their own countries without the need to migrate. This way everyone benefits; we get the cheap labor, they get the work.

Faced with the reality of the confrontation with the muslim world and the west that could last many decades, it seems prudent to limit our migrants from countries that are opposing us. After all, how many Nazis did we admit during World War 2?

The problem is not with immigration but with us being to gutless or blind to ask the right questions of people when they want to come here. Nearly all of us have benefited and been enriched by having people from different cultures and backgrounds as friends. One reason we don't demand allegiance is because we have so many locals who hate everything Australia stands for and has achieved over the last 200 years. History continues to be rewritten and the white anglos are always the crimminals. If anyone other the the whites do something wrong its because of us anyway. Many of those who hate our British heritage are the most racist people in our country. We can't and won't stop immigration but we can enforce what Mr Howard said in that we should at least chose who comes here.

Legrain attempts to gloss over the disastrous European experience of immigration by pointing out a few pathetic benefits, which have come at enormous social and cultural upheaval.

Fear of foreigners:

If there were nothing to fear, people would not be afraid. In many cases the fears are real, and justifiable. It is not a matter of a host country doing a better job integrating migrants: it that people naturally prefer to stick with their own. No laws or practical policies will change that.

Global debate:

Legrain only considers work and careers, but there is much, much more to life than working as a merchant banker in a foreign country. Why does Legrain measure life by work and money, as if it counts above everything else?

Legrain’s views are not a breath of fresh air at all. They are noxious and suffocating.

plerdsus: 'After all, how many Nazis did we admit during World War 2?'

Hmmm. Given that Islam is a religion (the teachings of which are interpreted almost as many ways as Christianity) and the Nazi's were a political party with very specific objectives, I'm not sure your comparison holds much weight.

When you say 'countries that are against us', I presume you are speaking of middle eastern countries? Because we shouldn't forget that the majority of Muslims in the world are in fact from African nations, which kind of ruins the whole 'Islam = terrorism' equation many seem to make.

Robg : ‘If there were nothing to fear, people would not be afraid.’

Complete crap. Fear is built into people. If there isn’t anything real to fear, people will make something up. Built into our genes from hunter and gatherer days.

‘people naturally prefer to stick with their own’

Of course they do. I prefer to stick with humans as well. I don’t think I’d last very long in a lion herd.

Spendocrat,

Do you as a rule only write moronic comments? Or are you incapable of writing anything else?

Once again a well intentioned tome, if somewhat misguided as some point out, is written which fails to address the real issue in the world: World overpopulation. When are we all going to address this issue and stop shuffling around the edges by thinking we can make room in Australia or anywhere else for the worlds disadvantaged and extremely poor.

We of the wealthy nations are well placed to change the social dynamic which preaches growth at all costs. Why are we still going down this road at the expense of all the other poor beings that inhabit this planet?

Our job, surely, is to do something about making the countries where these poor people come from livable so they do not need to leave. Diverse Culture is a wonderful thing and should be encouraged, not the homogeneous mass of half-baked mixes foisted on us by groups who espouse "multiculturalism" or "integration". Neither of these systems apears to work.

Meanwhile, as we fritter, our replenishable resources are degrading day by day.

spendocrat:

When you say 'countries that are against us', I presume you are speaking of middle eastern countries? Because we shouldn't forget that the majority of Muslims in the world are in fact from African nations, which kind of ruins the whole 'Islam = terrorism' equation many seem to make.

This statement is not true.

Asia 778,362,000 69.1%

Africa 308,660,000 27.4%

Europe 32,032,000 2.8%

Latin America 1,356,000 0.1%

North America 5,530,000 0.5%

Oceania 385,000 0.0%

World 1,126,325,000 100%

1.Indonesia 182.2 million
2.Pakistan 136.9 million
3.Bangladesh 115.0 million
4.India 108.6 million
5.Iran 63.9 million
6.Turkey 61.0 million
7.Egypt 51.6 million
8.Nigeria 40.2 million
9.Algeria 29.1 million
10.China * 29.1 million
11.Morocco 29.1 millio

MIGRATION...and CULTURAL COMPATABILITY...

I refer all readers to my topic in the general discussion area on this, BUT..
this author is telling the migration story as it really is...and as I and others have been saying for quite some time..

IT'S ABOUT THE "MONEY" STUPID..... i.e.. Ecomonic migration.

This naive and idealistic child of an author applauds the idea that the poor of one country going to another for a better deal will help everyone.. ROT ! if you follow that TREND to its logical conclusion you will just have everyone POOR.

But he also misses a very glaring reality. COMPATABILITY.

Do the new arrivals pose a threat to everything we cherish

- jobs, ....................... not so much.
-the welfare state,............ nope..they just enjoy it.
-our national identity and .... YES absolutely.
-way of life, even our ....... YES.. absolutely.
-freedom and security ........ 11 Muslim men in Sydney and 13 in Melbourne on trial say YES..ABSOLUTELY.

We canNOT speak of migration in purely economic terms.. we MUST speak about it in cultural and religious terms as well.

2/3rds of Swedes believe Islam is not compatable with Western Values.
just after the poll was taken the Malmo Mosque was burnt to the ground..for the 2nd time.

LESSON ? yep..there is an important one. MESS WITH THE PEOPLES WILL...and the PEOPLE WILL REACT..

Gee.. now that was hard to figure out wasn't it ? Cronulla.. lack of policing.. lax law enforcement of thug behavior.. KA-BOOM. 5000 people are wreaking havoc.

Blind Aunt Nellie could have seen that coming.. and she would have done something EARLY....
http://www.islamonline.net/English/News/2005-09/19/article07.shtml

The weight of academic studies on migration conclude there is little or no net benefit to the host country. Most of the economic benefit goes to the migrants themselves, the rest goes into the pockets of big business.

There is an almost limitless supply of poor migrants from poor countries, enough to swamp the host country and destroy the very benefits that migrants were seeking there in the first place. That's what will happen if we open the floodgates.

If you're a poor or middle class Australian, high immigration is not in your interests. The fact that it is happening is a silent conspiracy between the political class on the left and right. The right see migrants as cheap labour, the left see them as cheap votes.

The end result of migration has, in every case I can think of, been disastrous for the recipients of the migration flow. Although the new society of imigrants has ofter been very successful, often, only the crumbs are left for the original imhabitants. Is that you want for our kids.

Before you scream rubbish, here are a few examples.
Austrailian Aboriginals; American Indians; Indians; Malays; Polynesians; Picts; Celts; Aztec, & there are hundreds more.

Anywhere, that some members of the community can falsely blame their lack of success on their ethnicity, is heading for trouble, & we probably have over a million of them now

‘Robg’ wrote:
>Fear of foreigners:
>If there were nothing to fear, people would not be afraid. In many
>cases the fears are real, and justifiable. It is not a matter of a
>host country doing a better job integrating migrants: it that people
>naturally prefer to stick with their own. No laws or practical
>policies will change that.

In 1949 I first encountered a song from the musical "South Pacific". Written by Richard Rodgers and Oscar Hammerstein II, it taught me a lot about fear and racism. I was 7 years-old and have never forgotten its lesson. Here is its Wikipedia entry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You%27ve_Got_to_Be_Carefully_Taught#_note-1

South Pacific received scrutiny for its commentary regarding relationships between different races and ethnic groups. In particular, "You’ve Got to Be Carefully Taught" was subject to widespread criticism, judged by some to be too controversial or downright inappropriate for the musical stage. Sung by the character Lieutenant Cable, the song is preceded by a lyric saying racism is "not born in you! It happens after you’re born..." The song begins:

You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear,
You’ve got to be taught from year to year,
It’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear—
You’ve got to be carefully taught

You’ve got to be taught to be afraid
Of people whose eyes are oddly made,
And people whose skin is a different shade—
You’ve got to be carefully taught.

You’ve got to be taught before it’s too late—
Before you are six or seven or eight,
To hate all the people your relatives hate—
You’ve got to be carefully taught!
You’ve got to be carefully taught!

Rodgers and Hammerstein risked the entire South Pacific venture in light of legislative challenges to its decency or supposed Communist agenda. While on a tour of the South, lawmakers in Georgia (U.S. state) introduced a bill outlawing entertainment containing "an underlying philosophy inspired by Moscow." One legislator said that "a song justifying interracial marriage was implicitly a threat to the American way of life." Rodgers and Hammerstein defended their work strongly…

BOAZ_David, I was... TRYING to READ... your POSTING but I got A severe CASE of SPOTS'nDOTS... before MY eyes.... SoMEThing ABOut...Immigration...maKING us..ALL PoOR. Then THE ROT REAlly SEt..IN...

Legrain makes it all sound lovely, doesn’t he?

Unfortunately, he misses a vital parameter. The migrants who are generally being accepted into the richer countries are themselves from the educated elite of their home countries and that means that these countries are being deprived of a much needed resource. This in turn will drive their economies downward in the long term. From an economic viewpoint, we are really raping them.
It could be argued that a more humanitarian migration program would involve the influx of unskilled people who are doing it really tough in their home countries. Most employers who need unskilled labour in this country complain of the difficulties they have in finding people who are willing to do menial tasks. The suggestion by plerdsus that we outsource our labour needs is a good one. It gets away from the problems of integration whilst giving the poorer people of the developing countries a leg up. It also takes away from them the need to breed large families. This ties in with the comments of GuyV.
BOAZ_ David, I don’t always agree with you, but on this occasion, I think your summation is right on the money.
Likewise, grn. Absolutely no benefit to the poor of either country, in fact the reverse is true.
Hasbeen Your comments are not altogether true, although I must say that generally, it has been a mixed blessing in many countries. Our own natives didn’t fare too well. The great British Empire bought many benefits to the nations under its sway. The major problems seem to have happened when government was handed back to the natives. Some have not coped too well since, perhaps with the exception of India
Robg, Legrain is an economist who has been taught by people who don’t realise the dynamics of the subject, so that his solutions, which might have been valid once, no longer apply.

It's great how an article like this - diligently researched, carefully expressed and largely full of Christian charity - brings out the SIFs, isn't it?

SIF: Single Issue Fanatic

Primary Symptom: to a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

This one roused the population SIF - "...fails to address the real issue in the world: World overpopulation"

Closely followed by the anti-Muslim SIF "...2/3rds of Swedes believe Islam is not compatable with Western Values" (stretching the bounds of relevance another mile or two there, eh?).

I haven't seen the "we are all rooned 'cos there's no water" SIF yet, but he's bound to be just around the corner - plerdsus managed to work all three into one post, which possibly makes him a TIF.

Nothing wrong with being a SIF, I hear you say. It's good to be passionate about something, no?

Except that it leaves absolutely no room to actually discuss the views that were patiently and cogently constructed and argued in the article.

But I guess that doesn't matter much, so long as you give that ol' nail another big whack, eh?

Migration to Australia: Less about birds and more about lemmings.

World population in 2025 will top 8billion and in that time oil reserves will be almost certainly insufficient to give 3billion of those people a satisfactory existence. That means class warfare across and within national borders and a simmering overpopulation Armageddon that will rage till human numbers fit energy resources. some 5 billion people are likely to be purged across the planet, roughly the population befor the discovery of oil.

People in Our cities are aleady fighting over scarce resources like water, road space and harbour access, rentals and homes due to overpopulation pressures. When it comes down to energy wars it will be nothing less than civil war.

Our Author apparently seeks to cement some kind of power and fortune in talking up immigration at this time before the rot sets in. But a word to the wise, Howard, Iemma and their corporation bosses already have cornered that market. You are too late. But alas power corrupts and in the case of Howard and Iemma their brains have started to rot. They actually BELIEVE that by immigrating 140,000 foreigners a year into a drought stricken continent that it will ease drought conditions and stop bushfires. The only way it will ease drought is to intimidate citizens into lowering their water use, their standard of living so some foreign twits can come here and write articles on how they are better suited to this country than Australians and thus deserve the water and other scarce resources we have to relinquish.

The net winners: You guessed it. Investment bankers, developers and corporate CEOs who get bigger markets and more panicky and desperate customers who will spend and gamble their last cents to survive the ugliness created. I mean this is already happening, certainly in Sydney, Brisbane and Melbourne.

And the Howardesque, Iemmaesque politicians? They still think THEY are the winners but they are perhaps the biggest losers. For what history is left of the country before the 2025 overpopulation armageddon, they and their families will be shamed as history's scapegoats.

“So just think how opening our borders to migrants could transform our world for the better in the 21st century”

Legrain’s brave new world is as scary as anything Huxley or Orwell could create:In its mature form , it would have a world where countries become little more than factories, populated by state-less workers who move in & out –like shift workers .

It takes no account of social incompatibility/costs , environmental costs or long-term political consequences.

As long as the workers produce the most economical widgets & have comparative wage justice –that’s all that matters.

A better title for the book would have been “Migration isn’t just for LOCUSTS”

The is a debate featuring Phillipe on You Tube and it can be found here at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OFg7wVETAjk&mode=related&search

The man Phillipe is debating is Andrew Green. Andrew suggests that the overall benefit of immigration to the host population is minimal, the equivalent of a third of a mars bar per month per capita. Phillipe suggests merchant bankers benefit by immigration because of the supply of nannies that allow them to return to work. Bit of a wacko rationale if you ask me on Phillipe's part.

Humans are not goods to be traded, but the likes of Legrain would drag us back to the days of slavery if they could, pity they can't, so they push multiculturalism instead. If the population is ageing and the birth rate is decreasing do something about it to reverse the trends. But perhaps self destruction is what they desire, and rationalise in the name of "good for the economy". Losers

If people are successful in their own countries, they have no reason to leave. That should tell you something about immigrants

Oh good grief Leigh.

Never mind the dictators who conduct ethnic cleansing: it's the people's fault they're getting massacred. Silly them.

Never mind the wretched poverty and lack of opportunity available to these people: it's their own fault right Leigh?

Never mind the fact that there may be people out there suffering from circumstances beyond their control.

I can understand some people being concerned about integration; I can understand some people being afraid of change; but your total lack of compassion towards these people is truly frightening. I honestly am much more afraid of that kind of attitude than I am of immigrants... but then again, I'm an immigrant myself, so I suppose I don't have any right to comment on your utopia.
Then again, I was moved here by my parents, so even if I could have decided not to come, I didn't have all that much choice.

Then again, that doesn't matter either, does it Leigh? None of these circumstances could possibly be beyond the control of the evil immigrants.

I can't help but feel you would be a better person if you actually spoke with some of these migrants who you seem to hate so very much, better yet, visited their worlds and lived among them.

Turn Right then left, my grandma used to say to me 25 years ago when I would not eat all my tea that there are people in Africa who would be glad to eat this meal. I probably will be telling my own grandkids the same in another 25 years.

Promoters of mass immmigration use the fear of 'damage' to the economy if immigration ceased to underpin their arguments then berate anyone who disagrees as fearful of the unknown and different. The truth is we choose to allow ourselves to become dependant on immigration and we can choose not to. The most succesfull societies are largely and/or were formerly homogenous ethnically speaking. The least successful are often the most diverse, in direct opposition to the socialist utopia!

People behave differently as individuals as opposed to a collective group consciousness.When groups are allowed to isolate themselves and not learn the mainstream native tongue then real divisions in society appear causing friction and often violence.

Language and communication is the secret to all social and economic success.We have allowed the concept of multi-culturalism to reach the point of absurd isolationism whereby cultures who seek to escape the chaos and violence of their home countries are ignored under the banner of political correctness,accusations of racism,while they freely practise their own predjudices in the name of tolerance.

The lunatic left have a lot to answer for.All cultures are not equal in every respect.Immigration is a complex mix,however new arrivals must learn to respect the existing dominant culture that provides such prosperity.They need to appreciate our societies strengths before seeking to destroy it's foundations.

No society is perfect and change must always be evolutionary that respects the will and beliefs of the majority.Anachists can just get nicked!

Davo, Arjay - couple of points:

-The US is the most diverse nation in history. It may well have problems, but it would be churlish to deny it has been successful.

-I can acknowledge there are problems that need to be addressed with immigration, I truly can. But there is a difference between analysing these issues then coming up with practical ideas, compared to saying "immigrants are bad and the bane of our society."

For example: A minimum level of english to be learned by immigrants = not a bad idea. Considering that some cultures may clash with Australian society = reasonable I suppose.

Blaming immigrants for society's ills = a cheap election tactic. All of us except aboriginals are at least a product of immigration by descent.

Besides. Our birth rate isn't all that crash hot.

And Arjay - it's all very well to use statements like 'lunatic left' but I can just as easily go with 'rabid right.'

Either way... it doesn't really do a whole lot for debate except denigrate the other side in general.

Fresh thinking?

I have heard people say that England is a lost cause. Now I understand why. Philippe's "logic" is exactly what is destroying England - it sounds like a cultural vacuum. Sure glad I'm not there to witness the ensuing power struggle.

Salmon Rushdie knows who will fill the cultural vacuum:

"Why we're all living under a fatwa now:
What I fear most is that, when we look back in 25 years' time at this moment, what we will have seen is the surrender of the West, without a shot being fired. They'll say that in the name of tolerance and acceptance, we tied our own hands and slit our own throats."

England's intelligence agencies can't keep up with the home-grown terrorist threats as it is. Enjoy the fatwa Philippe.

Folks, folks, it's all a numbers game. No one is concerned by the Greek who runs the fish shop or the Chinese take away on the corner or the Jewish pawn broker in the main street. Everyone loves them and rightly so for the cultural diversity each one brings to our lucky conntry. After two generations they all turn into Australians anyway and we get to keep the food.

However, anyone would get pretty twitchy when we are now getting 12,000 Vietnamese, Americans, Mexicans, Albanians, Serbs, Somalian's or any other group in the next suburb!

We know why this is happening. So the false economy of the building industry can keep building crap housing spreading west for which these poor people sign up for life and which is infinitely better than what they left behind in their home country.

Wake up Australia. The only people benifiting from this rediculous increase in immigration is the leaches feeding off the system. Sweat shop owners, immigration lawyers, and the cheap housing sector. The rest of the society is left to carry the social can for all the agravation festering in these knots of displaced and essentially unhappy people.

What about a one-out-one-in policy. This would maintain cultural diversity without increasing the population. Preferably two-out-one-in till we get to a population our overstreached resources can manage.

How would Leigh explain the million or so expatriots who live permanently over seas? Do we assume as failures they migrated

- we could start with Clive James, Robert Hughes for example - throw Rolf Harris into the mix - who knows even Peter Singer may never come back either - and then there is Peter Carey, the Booker prize winner - and resident of New York - I guess they all fled these shores in the vain hope they could make a better life for themselves in the New World - I mean look at Rupert Murdoch - he was never gonna make it over here

- he had to immigrate to make a go of it

It is sad that a whole article can be written in this day and age with nary a word about water shortages and over-population. Why would OLO publish such an inadequate analysis ? Of course the article is all about the UK, but I gather they are facing severe water shortages even in that green and pleasant land. As for us in the driest continent, we should not contemplate the present rate of immigration if this drought looks like being a more permanent state of affairs. This article is simply not relevant to Australia.

In general terms, comments above have presented compelling arguments against immigration, but one was not addressed: the only way governments will bite the over-population bullet is when they no longer have the escape valve of emigration available.

read the banner Kang - this is as much as anything a journal of opinions - it is not an academic journal - And Anyway I think the water thingy is a bit of a Furphy!

We get heaps of rain we just let it run off to the sea - and those with acces to it waste it - we have had it too good for too long - we manage our resources with all the nouse of a drunken sailor - no eye for the future -

Eventually others will start eyeing off our wide brown land and want to inhabit parts of the country we are too dumb or scared to. Personally I welcome them and their wily ways.

It is a luxury to have only 21mill living on the edge of this block of land - we wont keep it to uorselves for that much longer

Those posters that say the basic problem is world over population are correct. Guy V says "We of the wealthy nations are well placed to change the social dynamic which preaches growth at all costs. Why are we still going down this road at the expense of all the other poor beings that inhabit the planet". He is spot on!

I recently read that somebody dies each 30 seconds from starvation related causes. Humans should be totally ashamed of this. We should take this matter on. Where is the UN? The only ones seemingly doing anything about the worlds population are the muslims in Africa and Middle East, but their methods are not acceptable to others.

Immigration is not the answer to this and the author seems to think it will cure all.

why do we have a high immigration policy in Australia? Because big business wants it and they pay for it by way of donations to the major political parties. Why , because it is a cheaper way of selling more consumer goods than competing with each other. Big business cares nought about our living standards or the cost and time it takes us to get to and from work or how long queses are.
Big business also imports skilled workers because it is cheaper than training our own.

Guy V you advocate a reduction in immigration by implementation of a one-in-one- out policy. Good idea by while ever the bloke paying the piper calls the tune, it will not happen. I recall Pauline advocating a zero nett policy and see what they did to her.

grn and B-D you both also have the right ideas on this.

Re Banjo:
“The only ones seemingly doing anything about the worlds population are the Muslims in Africa and Middle East, but their methods are not acceptable to others”

Banjo I must correct you there.
The policy you allude to does not result in a net reduction in population -and never ever had that intention.

Rather it goes like this:We kill or expel one of yours and replace them with six of ours.

And hey! don’t knock it, it’s been perfected after centuries of practice.Just ask the (now) minority ( previously majority ) Copts, Armenians, Kurds, West Irianese etc etc…

To say we are helping the third world by letting in people from there is completely false. Please see video below.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n7WJeqxuOfQ

reckless immigration is a disaster for the host country. Ask the Romans if you dont belive me!

To say that water isn't an issue when contemplating immigration is denying the obvious. Those people on level 4 or 5 water restrictions would be shaking their head.
Alan Kohler presented a graph on the news showing a gap of 100,000 homes when comparing population growth and building construction. This gap is increasing. Sure we can have more people, we can pack them in like sardines in our cities like they do in Europe and Asia, but are Australian's willing to give up the 1/4 acre block, backyard and vegie garden for that lifestyle. And creating that environment would achieve what? The insatiable demands from 9 billion other people will never be sated, I don't see why we, a nation that kept it's reproductive rate under control, have to give up a high standard of living for other more irresponsible nations.
And don't get me started on peak oil and the changes that will occur to our cities and economies after the age of carbon.

FRANKGOL.. sorry mate.. didn't mean to confuse you there..but lets face it..some posters just cramm a whole lot of information in long rambling sentences and have no paragraphs.. I can't read stuff like that so I try to space it out and use the 'headline' subtext approach.
Adapt to my culture :)

Easytimes.. good video. America is symbolized by Brintney Spears..

1/ Recent interviewer
-Question "Do you have any regrets for things you have done" ?
-Answer "(very confident) Noooo I have NOOO regrets for ANYthing"

2/ Britney Spears last week : bald, verging on a breakdown, into rehab.. falling to pieces. Paranoid about losing her children.

Yep.. thats America. "Its all about MEEEEEE" and that means I won't have enough children to replace 'me' and I'll just focus on the 'now' and existential thrills, we reap what we sow. If we don't replace ourselves, OTHERS will, they will grab the opportunity and realize that the demographic trends mean they will displace traditional non Indigenous Australians in due course without firing a shot (Except of course in SouthWest Sydney)

The greatest threats to Australia are:
-"Me" (first, second and third) attitude
-"time".

It stands to reason that the more diverse a population is the more divergent they will be. Bleating about humanity doesn't alter the fact that most conflicts around the globe are ethnic or sectarian based. Sadly, we just don't get on when we are in large groups. The reality is that every nation needs a homeland and they don't want to share it with anyone else. Immigration is another term for "new homeland" with the same result. It is still a sacred cow in Australia even though the policy has outlived its time. The net benefits that may flow in terms of GDP are outweighed by social dislocation and the demands on the environment. Most Australians would have preferred a lower standard of living and a culturally homogeneous neighborhood to what we have now.

Oh dear. Another "turn-back-the-clocker".

>>The reality is that every nation needs a homeland and they don't want to share it with anyone else<<

I hate to break this to you, but ever since man decided that his mission was power and conquest, the basis of this little reality went out of the window.

For as long as we have had the ability to transport armed men to the next village, and then the village after that, a homeland has simply been shorthand for "where I live now".

There is no country on earth that can say "this has always been my homeland, which I have never shared, and will never share with anyone".

Not even this one. We have adopted it.

So, given that we are all mongrels of some kind, and have our geographic "roots" in many different places over the generations, the concept of this being a pure and inviolable "homeland" is just a little tattered.

We are incredibly lucky that we or our ancestors immigrated here at some point in the past. However it is clear that this luck is assumed by some to give us the right to be incredibly mean-spirited, ungenerous and un-Christian to the next lot to arrive, just because we got here first.

Incidentally, it would be interesting to see this put to a vote:

>>Most Australians would have preferred a lower standard of living and a [more] culturally homogeneous neighborhood to what we have now.<<

I wonder. Considering the question would have to start "Would you prefer to have a lower standard of living rather than..."

The first question you'd get be "how much lower", and the second "than what?"

You wouldn't be able to answer either, would you?

Good post Pericles .. just one tiny (and repetitious bit) that needs addressing.

While there is a definite "hey..ur not our mob.. don't come here" in most people, there is also the quite proper recognition of the dangers of large groups of people who do not share the same values as us.
Small minorities of 'them' is ok.. LARGE minorities of 'them' is not, whoever the 'them' might be. Because 'they' will more than likely act like 'us' in their turn.
So, that wise saying comes to mind "Soul, know thy self" well something like that.. We act against 'uncontrolled and unlimited influxes of them', because we see what that very thing in our case did to the indigenous people.

So, the issue is not so much about charity and rights.. but common sense, human nature and history.

The issue of immigration is totally confused. Some advocate it because it will degrade our living standards and so make us less of a target for other countries. Some advocate it because it will make our living standards higher. Some advocate it because to oppose it is, in their opinions, blatantly racist. The latter group are the most powerful, and stand ready to form anti-racism inquisitions least any public figure questions immigration. Surely the rapidly widening inequality in Australia should point to the cynical use of immigration by a few to enrich themselves at the expense of all Australians.

Anyone for a working holiday in Siberia?

Pericles,
The first of your quotes of Sparker is, I guess, his opinion and I have never heard that expressed before.

In your second quote of his, he is wrong as I understand that our living standard was much higher when we had a less and a more homogeneous population and our living standard has slipped since then. I don't know where our living standard is now or how the demographers measure it.

I agree that we are a lot of mongrals, but that is good as I have distinctly noticed that crossbreds, in animals, are smarter than purebreds, and I think this applies to us as well. Probably gets down to inbreding to maintain a pure breed.

I also agree, we are fortunate that our forefathers migrated here and it is their sweat and toil that gave us that good fortunate. Yes, we owe it to others that we share this and we have done just that. But we also have a responsibility not ruin our forebears hard work through overstocking.

We badly need a serious discussion on and to determine a population policy, which the major political parties have never given us. Those like Tim Flannery say we have far too many people now, but others disagree. I think it is important that we determine this and not leave it up to big buisness, who have the parties in their pocket, and use only our GNP as the sole criteria.

We will not solve the worlds over population by overstocking our own country. If we decide to cap our population at a certain level it wiil not mean we are selfish and uncaring for others.

Why is it that the world media seems to be unwilling to put the pollies under the bright light and question them about the place that population has in the whole scheme of global degradation?

Why does nobody seem to care that migration only takes brain power away from the poor countries? Students who come here and successfully complete their courses are given the opportunity to stay, instead of going back to do something for their native countries and raise their standard of living so that they have less imperitive to breed large families.

No one seems to care that our finite resources will one day be exhausted and we will all have to live on what we can grow sustainably, or produce from other renewable sources. That means a significant reduction in the world population.

Go and read Malthus on "The principle of population"
http://www.ac.wwu.edu/~stephan/malthus/malthus.0.html

Pericles is quite correct, of course - and Boazy's prattling on, as ever, in defence of his religion. This is to be expected, because as Australian culture has changed over the last 50 years or so, Christianity has become ever more irrelevant to the daily lives of Australians. He's paranoid that Islam, as a more aggressive religion, will fill the apparent void that he perceives in an Australian culture in which the salience of Christianity has unquestionably diminished in comparatively recent times.

Boazy shouldn't worry though - despite his novel perspective and theories, the actuality is that the majority of Australians simply aren't very religious. After a couple of generations, 'Muslim' Australians won't be very religious either. It's a cultural thing, you know :) Secularism rules, OK?

Lastly, I'm surprised that such a learned anthropologist as our Boazy wouldn't be familiar with notion of ethnocentrism, which is a term that describes perfectly the phenomenon he attempts to discuss here:

"While there is a definite "hey..ur not our mob.. don't come here" in most people, there is also the quite proper recognition of the dangers of large groups of people who do not share the same values as us.
Small minorities of 'them' is ok.. LARGE minorities of 'them' is not, whoever the 'them' might be. Because 'they' will more than likely act like 'us' in their turn."

He confuses the universal social phenomenon of ethnocentrism with his own xenophobic ideas - which often stray perilously close to blatant racism. Fortunately, most people don't seem to take him too seriously.

I just feel the need to correct him occasionally :)

TRTL,I'd prefer Rabid Right discipline any day to this Lunatic Left chaos we are being seduced into at the moment under the banner of tolerance and political correctness.

It is a matter of weakness verses courage and will Kevin Rudd be up to the challenge?

Arjay

When we open your box of rhetoric, the second-hand cliches tumble out - "Rabid Right discipline", "Lunatic Left chaos", "the banner of tolerance and political correctness", "weakness verses [sic] courage".

Do you always you think in platitudes in daily life? Where's your substance? Where's your content? Where are your ideas? Give us something to argue against. Please.

The history of man is that of a migratory species. Even aboriginals came from some place else. Old World, New World thinking is contemporary thought not a historical approach. DNA studies in conjunction with deeper archaeological works refute the Clovis first theory of mans migration to the Americas. The Celtic people once roamed from what is todays Middle East, northwards into India and Mongolia and west to Great Britain. their not Asian or Slavic or Germanic but, there is mitochondrial evidence of the Celtic people in their DNA.
Some Australians may well find a familiar mitochondrion link with the Lebanese community. Who themselves are no more Lebanese than Australians are Australians.

VICTORY IS NIGH... or at least a mild chunk of progress...

CJ.... I note that my most instructive and unfathomably wise, not to mention humility bathed lessons to you are having an impact :)

You have retreated from "Racist bigotry and hatred" (now.. I'm going by my memory here from your posts.. so that could be a bit dodgy :)

to

"Straying perilously close to blatant racism"... aah.. the sweet smell of success ....

Within a few more hard won months you will be suitably moulded into "Hmm.. I'm sure I can detect a bit of questionable race thinking in your posts Boazy".. and with a bit more hard work that will morphe into "Hey.. I see it all now" :)

ETHNOCENTRISM and XENOPHOBIA.

In my defense, ethnocentrism relates to one defending ones 'ethnic kin' whereas I have defended a blended multi racial Australia with controlled immigration such that no one group (other than that currently prevailing (which is mixed anyway)) can have undue influence on the political and social history of this country. So, I have to politely reject the charge of 'ethnocentrism'.

XENOPHOBIA relates to 'race' but I am concerned with 'ideas' It matters not to me which race a person is, but the ideas driving them matter greatly.

Now.. having decisively disproven the charges, please don't make me wonder if you are 'seeing Jehovah's witnesses on the sly' by repeating the now disproven charges :) Only JW's seem to look at one with glazed eyes while you speak, just waiting for a verbal punctuation mark to resume their own doctrinal woffle.

Hmmm yep.. its a goodly day today.
cheers.

FRANK.. r u ok ?

CL Morgan confidently says:
“Boazy shouldn't worry though - despite his novel perspective and theories, the actuality is that the majority of Australians simply aren't very religious. After a couple of generations, 'Muslim' Australians won't be very religious either. It's a cultural thing, you know :) Secularism rules, OK?”

Morgan old mate, you might do well to study the history of modern Iran. I recall reading an article by some Europeans who were living in Iran at the time of the revolution. They were astounded how their modern, progressive Iranian neighbours became religious fundamentalists- almost overnight…
( another good source on the same theme is a book “Teaching Lolita in Tehran”.

We are all secular rationalist/moderates when the ship is sailing in calm waters . But should it hit a rock, most of us will quickly become born-agains of what ever creed is around.

( & come to think of it - some of the argument styles used by liberals/leftists/conservatives/gays are not far removed from fundamentalism anyway!)

Interesting you bring up Malthus VK3... before him, most britons were convinced the population was in decline.

Funnily enough, birth rates in the first world are stable. Just thought I'd note that, because it's something of a contrast to Malthusian doctrine.

Arjay - my point about rabid right v lunatic left is the either way you are using emotive language rather than reasoned arguments. Kind of makes it look like your arguments are based on anger rather than logic.

When you say strength, I notice you don't mention responsibility - I get the distinct feeling when you say that, that strength is a euphemism for making decisions without taking into account opposing views.

Dunno about you, but I certainly don't see that as strength.

BOAZ_David, I'm fine thanks.

Your novel definitions are a worry. Ethnocentrism, for example, is not just a matter of benignly defending ones 'ethnic kin' as you claim. It's more malignant than that. Why would an Anglo-Celt defend David Hicks or Chapelle Corby or for that matter Jack the Ripper or Oswald Mosely simply because they were 'ethnic kin'? Would you personally defend them over and above people like Ghandi, Nelson Mandella or Martin Luther King on the basis of 'ethnic kinship'?

Ethnocentrism is the practice of judging human behaviour and values based on deeming one's own 'ethnic values' as the 'natural' norm and, therefore, ipso facto superior to other 'ethnic values'. In that view, the closer other people approximate our own 'ethnic' standard the more they are regarded as OK .

Xenophobia, you say, relates to 'race'. It's broader than that. It actually means hatred of strangers. And that hatred can - and often does - manifest itself in a fear of the stranger's ideas.

Both ethnocentrism and xenophobia are readily observed in Australia; they get an easy run on OLO. A significant cause for concern.

High immigration is a scam to enrich land speculators, property developers, real estate agents, bankers, uscrupulous employers, etc at the expense of our environment, future generations and current inhabitants of this country. For further information, see my posts here:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=339#5794
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=310
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4834

Also, please have a look at an excellent recent "Time and Place" aticle, "The growth lobby and Australia's immigration policy" by Katharine Betts and Michael Gilding, available at:

http://www.candobetter.org/sheila/growthLobbyAndImmigration.pdf

Also, feel welcome to grab a copy of Sheila Newman's 2002 Master's thesis:

"The Growth Lobby and its Absence: The Relationship between the Property Development and Housing Industries and Immigration Policy
in Australia and France"

... available at: http://www.candobetter.org/sheila/

It's well worth the effort of downloading and printing out all 380 pages of it (the core document is only 240 pages). Appendixes can be obtained from Swinburne Uni.

Over the last few hundred years the following have happened in parallel:

Population explosion
Economic boom
Technological advancement
Environmental devastation

Since they all happened at the same time,
Perhaps I should write an article on how Global warming causes Technological advancement.

Anyway,
Many fisheries have collapsed,
Many species have died or will soon die.
The cost of residential land has far outstripped affordability improvement brought about by pitiful increase in economic activity due to unsustainable influx of consumers.

The problem is too many people.

Can we as human beings afford to entertain ridiculous notions of economic improvement due to overcrowding ?
Or is it like listening to a drunken madman howling at the moon.

Rather than bringing an overpopulated world to Australia, can I suggest doing everything possible to reduce populations in poor, overpopulated countries.

Whatever we spend now should be multiplied by 10 or 20. ie about the equivalent cost of a Collins class sub, or the gov. subsidy to 4 wheel drive imports

I'm sure Planet Earth would be grateful.

Unfortunatally “Last Word”, it is the eradication of White Christian / Judaic that is being enacted, White racial eradication by Psychological tactics of Guilt and Altruisms Dialectical materialism;
Once that has been achieved, it would only stand to reason it may well be the best as anarchy and the return to primitivism in a very short time.

Sneekepete is testimonial to that.

Have a guess what age category; and her employment status previously. It is these types that put us in the precarious position today.
Altruisms dialectical Materialism is the operative expression in this context.

Point to note for all the 'we're too populated camp'. Seeing as how you've made this all about us, why don't we have a look at it.

Accoriding to the ABS and DIMIA, immigration is essential for Australia to maintain the our lifestyle even at today's rates. Ignoring any intrinsic benefit as outlined by the author, the simple fact is that to support Australia's aging baby-boomers then we are going to need to have at least as many people paying tax in 30 years time as we do today. With most baby boomers expected to hang on until they hit 80, that means a net increase in population. As we are not breeding to the right levels now, then immigration is the only answer.

Hang on....

Well, actually there may be another.

Now that I think of it, I guess another thing we can do is decide that people born between 1946 and 1965 get no government support (medical, housing, etc) at all once they hit 50. That way we can continue to pay the bills with a smaller work force. Hell, it may even help with population problem by shuffling off a few boomers a little earlier that they would otherwise.

Suits everyone doesn't it? Lower Aussie population. No pesky immigrants with wierd clothes and strange ideas. More water for everyone once we bulldoze all the new golf courses being built for the retirement crowd.

As I was born after that it doesn't really bother me all that much. Probably make life simpler.

Sound like a plan to you?

Why does your government call a balanced demographic an "aging population" ?

What hurts most ? high interest rates, or having to pay half a million dollars for a house.

Are you cutting up your cake and selling it,
so you can buy... another cake ?

And what concern is there for our natural heritage?
My favorite example is the Australian lungfish, it has been doing just fine for five hundred million years, about 499 million years before your monkey ancestors grew opposing thumbs.

What a shame, it will soon be extinct, because the government needs a dam.

We need more water, because.., because of the drought.
1000 people a week moving to Queensland, the dams haven't gotten any bigger.

So, please help everybody,
Stop watering your garden,
Fit a water-saving shower head,
Recycle your milk bottles.
And follow your idiot treasurer to economic utopia.

Mylakhrion,

Australia is hardly in danger of running out of people. According to the ABS figures 2 babies are born and one net immigrant arrives for every person that dies. The population doubling time at the current 1.3% growth rate is about 53 years. The problem with bringing in young migrants to combat aging of the population is that the migrants grow old too. Then they also need pensions and health care. We could not get away with just deporting them when they hit retirement age. What happens then? Do still more migrants have to be brought in to look after them? When does the process end? At standing room only? Every country will eventually have to adapt to a stable age structure. Why not do it while there is still something worth saving?

I don't dispute that there are cultural and educational advantages in having some immigration, and that it is good to give very gifted people opportunities to develop their talents, but this could be accommodated on a one-out one-in basis. In general, if migration and population growth were as wonderful as the article says, then evidence of this would blaze forth in international comparisons and economic studies. It doesn't. Take a look at the CIA World Factbook on the Web. There is no link between GNP per capita and population size, growth rate, or density among developed countries, and a negative link with growth rate in the Third World. Every additional person in a developed country puts 8 to 20 times the pressure on the environment of an additional person in the Third World. (See the environmental footprints on the Redefining Progress site.) Our quality of life in the cities is getting worse because of overcrowding. I support the others who blame all this on a corrupt and greedy elite.

Moploki,
Do not be too concerned about 1000 people per week moving to Queensland. They are easing the water situation in Sydney, Melbourne, etc. We need to be more concerned about the number coming into Australia. With a nett immigration rate of 135000 per year, we get 2500 new arrivals per week, which have to be watered, fed and housed.

How we can keep bringing this ammount of people in without a population goal is simply asking for problems of all sorts.

With the world being over populated, I consider the payment of $4000 for women to have babies is ridiculous. If we want, we can make up any numbers we like by adjusting the immigration rate.

We urgently need the debate on our population and we need to be more selective to keep social problems to a minimum.

High immigration in Australia is absurd.

By far the most important thing that we need to be doing in this country is weaning ourselves of the continuous growth paradigm and onto a basis of genuine sustainability.

A necessary part of this is the balancing of demand on our resource base with the ability for that resource base to provide everything that we need while remaining healthy and keeping up the provision for the long term.

Any other concerns that are purported to run in favour of high immigration such as alleviating the stresses caused by an aging society or the maintenance of high economic growth are of vastly less importance than the sustainability imperative (They are highly flawed notions anyway).

We simply MUST look after the preservation of our own society first and foremost.

We can continue to contribute to world poverty as we do it, concentrating on expenditure at the sources of the problems, rather than the tendency to treat symptomatic issues.

Once we are confidently heading towards a secure sustainable society, we can ramp this right up. But if our society continues to gather stresses, and ultimately falls apart, which is where it is are heading, then we won’t be able to do anything to help global quality of life issues.

Mylakhrion,

Contrary to the impression the politicians try to create, Australia is not running out of people. According to the ABS approximately 2 babies are born and one net migrant arrives for every person that dies. With a 1.3% growth rate we are set to double in numbers in 53 years. Migration won't fix an older age structure because migrants get old too and can't be deported when their economic usefulness is over. What do we do when they need pensions and health care? Take in even more migrants? Where does it stop - at standing room only? Every country will just have to get used to a stable age structure, hopefully before everything has been devoured.

Migration has some real cultural and educational benefits, as does giving very gifted people an otherwise unachievable opportunity to develop their talents. These benefits could be achieved on a one-out, one-in basis, however. Mass migration is being driven by a corrupt and greedy elite, who undeniably benefit from high land prices, bigger markets, and cheaper labour. If you look at the CIA World Factbook on the Web you will see that there is no correlation between GNP per capita and population size, growth rate or density among the developed countries and a negative correlation between population growth rates and prosperity in the Third World. A number of other studies within countries have found that per capita economic benefits to the host population are "close to zero or negative". See the Center for Immigration Studies site (www.cis.org).

According all the State of the Environment reports since 1990, every environmental indicator in Australia has been getting worse, except for urban air quality. Quality of life is also being diminished by factors directly related to population growth: tiny block sizes, unaffordable housing, permanent water restrictions, etc., etc.

Re Sneekeepete's Yellow Peril arguments: countries with big, dense populations still get invaded (China by Japan in WWII). If your arguments have some substance, a nuclear weapons program could deter both armed and unarmed invasion.

In a parallel universe, the Eora people see a boatload of illegal immegrants (by the reckoning of those people, 26 January 1788) about to trespass on their land - and knowing, as many people on this forum say, that nation has a "homeland" and should stay there.

What a pathetic excuse these 'immigrants' have - social and political problems they won't resolve themselves, a messianic and aggressive religion, filled with diseases and dirt. Not the sort of people you'd want in Eora country.

So the sharper leadership of the Eora decide to surround the boats and set fire to them before they can disembark, no doubt with gunpowder explosions, spearing of survivors of the fire and loss of stores.

They might have been better off.

It is my opinion a reasonable target population for Australia is around 10 million.

Believe it or not, some population targets are MORE than we have today instead of LESS.

Is it a complex economic issue...
Or are you driven by the same urge to increase as mould, and cancer.

India and China,
Both countries are shining economic success stories the envy of your government, with no minimum wage, holiday pay, health cover, an average yearly income of 5000 dollars.
They will never own cars, there isn't enough metal in the ground.
They will never have a garden let alone the water to put on it.
And whats the upside ?, a permanently ruined environment.

FRANK.. I see the possibility here for progress.

I note your wider definitions of ethnocentrism and xenophobia.

But...

Do you not agree that there are certain cultural or religious practices which are not only incompatable but also dangerous for Australia ?

Would you want a few shipload of National Socialists to be welcomed to Australia after they had been given the short shift by Germany ?

If you can agree on this, then we are on the same page.

That brings us to the point of 'defining the edges and boundaries' of what is dangerous and unnaceptable, but I'll leave that till I see your response.
cheers
BD

David...in the spirit of progress.

I agree in theory that there may be certain cultural or religious practices which are not only incompatable but also dangerous for Australia (but NB my caveat below). The example you give - a shipload of National Socialists arriving on our shores - is neither cultural nor religious. It's political and ideological. (Although, I remember the collaboration of the Papacy with the Nazis during WW2; and in that sense it might be religious. Dictators and mad men have often run rampant in the name of God - and men of the cloth have often collude with ruling elites when it suited their purpose.)

The caveat - I would be wary of conflating what is 'dangerous' with what is 'unacceptable'. They are different. The first is a threat to life and reasonably easy to identify and agree upon. The second is more in the realm of value judgement - and subect to zenophobia and ethnocentrism.

Are we on the same page yet?

“According to the popular account, Archimedes was busy contemplating a mathematical drawing in the sand. He was interrupted by a Roman soldier and replied impatiently: "Do not disturb my circles".
The soldier was enraged by this, and killed Archimedes with his sword.”

Australia's politicans/OLO posters were busy contemplating population issues when they were interrupted by the news of the arrival of a flotilla of refugee boats : "Do not disturb us - we are busy devising an ecologically sustainable population model the politicans/OLO posters demnanded .”
[add your own conclusion]

Horus;

Keith Windsshuttle encapsulates what you suggest here quite well in a published article in Quadrant magazine Jan 07; Be it a rather long article.
Excerpt here; http://democracyfrontline.org/blog/?p=1878#comments

Frank..close indeed.

The only area of possible disagreement now might be in the area of the subjective value judgement on what is 'dangerously unnaceptable'.

Lets use the issue of Islam (as its my usual grazing ground) as an example.
Based on Professors Israeli's assertion about 'Muslim critical mass' and the dangers therein, lets state what he is not saying first.
-He is not condemning "all" muslims.
-He is not suggesting there no wonderful compassionate, kind Muslims.
-I don't see him suggesting that Muslims in a country should be deported, detained, harmed or marginalized in any other way than they already marginalize themselves.

What he is saying is that based on his observations and considerable research, there does come a point where the 'radical' end of the Muslim population becomes more than a little bit dangerous.

There would be 2 reasons for this.
1/ -the bigger the overall population, the more 'radicals'.
2/ -The more radicals, the more likely are threats of violence.

Clearly, based on sound observations of our own (Australia) if our foreign policy conflicts with the radicals views on "Infidels invading Muslim lands" (lets not consider Iraq here, because the same applies to Afghanistan and even Spain which is still considered 'Muslim land') Then they will see this as a call or justification to wage literal war on Australia.
We have 13 men in Melbourne and 11 in Sydney who appear to confirm this observation.

My conclusion is probably where you and I will not only be on a different page but a different chapter.
I would halt completely any Muslim migration to Australia UNLESS they are able to do the following:
a) Publically repudiate specific verses of the Quran. (23:5-6 is one)
b) Agree that Mohammed interpreted the 'fight them' verses in the Quran in 'aggresive terms' and swear an oath of alleigance to Australia and that they would fight and kill if neccessary any Invader (specially Muslim) should they be called on to do so in the name of national security.

Even if they did, I'd prefer a halt to Muslim Immig.

David,

When we debate the notion of 'unacceptable danger' in the context of immigration, how quickly protagonists raise Islam and the Middle East (the 'grazing ground' as you call it). Islam has no monopoly on religious-inspired violence. However, we often overlook the fact that more 'unacceptable danger' consists in Muslims versus Muslims than Muslims versus other religions (violence between Christians and Christians is not entirely unknown too).

Be that as it may, from the perspective of Australia's national interests we could just as readily look at Indonesia. With about 170 million Muslims - which makes it the biggest 'Muslim nation' and being a much closer neighbours it is of special interest to Australia's future. There's no problem with applying the 'critical mass' thesis to Indonesia. Would you say that there is more danger in 'radical Islam' in Indonesia than in Iraq? If not, why not?

Furthermore, the Christian population of Indonesia is about the same as the total population as Australia (c 20 million). What do we know about how the Christian population are faring in mainstream Indonesia?

Taking the argument a little further, why is there no threat to Christianity from Bangladesh which has a greater mass of Muslims than Iraq? Or from India? Or China? Or Turkey? Or the UAR? Or Morocco?

Did you know that less than 20% of Arabs are Muslim? Why are we fixated on the Middle East when we talk of Islam?

I wonder too why people continue to assert that Islam - as a generic belief system - is a threat when it is clear that there are any number of Muslim nations that pose no threta to us?

I think I must agree with you that we are not only on a different page but a different chapter when you call for a ban on Muslim immigration.

I think HUMAN culture is bad for this country.
Please take your philosophical disagreements elsewhere you stinking monkeys.

Frank Gol,
Frank I always thought that GOL stood for “ Gollum “.
Now I’m convinced of it -you’ve clearly been hiding in cave playing with your ring for the last few decades.

“What do we know about how the Christian population are faring in mainstream Indonesia?”
“Why is there no threat to Christianity from Bangladesh which has a greater mass of Muslims than Iraq? Or from India? Or China? Or Turkey? Or the UAR? Or Morocco?”:

What planet have you been living on? [ROFL! ]

“Did you know that less than 20% of Arabs are Muslim?”

What comic did you read that in? [ ROFL! ]

I’ll leave him to you David

Fortunately, neither Boazy nor his cohort of less talented (but rather more hateful) acolytes will ever be in a position to influence Australia's immigration policy directly. As the article's author suggests, it's inevitable that economic globalisation and climate change will cause people to migrate around the globe in higher numbers than ever before. Of course this threatens the economically privileged and those who adhere to outmoded religious ideologies, but they'll get over it eventually - while continuing to bleat plaintively about an apocalypse that won't actually happen.

Oh, I think FrankGol made a simple typo: it's less than 20% of Muslims who are Arabs, rather than the other way around. His point about there being disproportionate emphasis on the Middle East by the Islamophobes is still valid.

frank et al, your all a little behind the times. Christianity is being assaulted on all sides in India. Especially from the ranks of Islam and Hindi. It is now a criminal offence to become Christian. And many Christians are being singled out for retribution in the name of community cohesiveness. It depends if the community is predominately Hindu or Islamic. Of course the Hindu and Muslim are having a go at it between themselves too.

Hatred, it's alive and flourishing here on the pages of OLO as it is any where else in the world. Who said love comes easy?

Thank you CJ Morgan. You're right to correct my serious typo. I meant to say: less than 20% of Muslims are Arabs, not the other way round. My apologies. I wanted to point out that the fixation of the so-called 'clash of civilizations' on the Middle East was misleading. And my case remains.

aqvarivs says: 'It is now a criminal offence to become Christian [in India].' This is a gross exaggeration. The BBC reports that a small number of states governed by the Hindu nationalist party have introduced laws to make conversions to Christianity more difficult. (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6050408.stm)

Hindu-Christian volence comes from extremist groups - on both sides. In general, Christians and Hindus in India have many centuries of peaceful coexistence.

My point remains: in India, Christianity is under much greater threat from the numerically dominant Hindus than from Muslims. Yet that is hardly front page news in Australia. As with Indonesia's Christians, the number of Christians in India outnumbers the total Australian population. Christianity in India is vigorous and in no danger of disappearing soon (see http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07722a.htm or http://www.missionstudies.org/conference/1papers/fp/Roger_Hedlund_Full_Paper.pdf

Horus, It's well-known that those who throw personal abuse do so because they feel threatened by the target's ideas. Why did my ideas upset you? Can you offer better ideas, or is hysterical abuse the best you can do? Are you a Christian? Or just rabid anti-Muslim?

I agree with aqvarivs: Hatred, is alive and flourishing here on the pages of OLO. Thankfully, it's expressed only through words.

Frank... I'll seek to address your first paragrph as it contains most of the issues.

Grazing Ground.. Actually I don't see the Middle East coming into it.

The major point I was making, is that Islam as an ideology does actually contain the equivalent to the Marxist idea of "dictatorship of the proletariat by violent overthrow of the Bourgoise". In its call for the triumph of the Calipha (Dar Ul Islam) over Dar Ul Haab (lands of Infidels)

Christianity_Hinduism_Buddhism_Zoroastrianism_Sikhism etc have no such concept.

Islam and Marxism share the goal of ultimate earthly and political victory.
The original Islamic state was established by violence the the ruthless and genocidal supression of enemies, -in contrast, Christianity was established by this.

Acts 8:1-4 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?book_id=51&chapter=8&version=31

[Persecution, believers scattered.

3But Saul began to destroy the church.

4Those who had been scattered preached the word wherever they went.]

COMMENT: If we compared this moment to an equivalent one in the growth of Islam, this would coincide with the flight of Mohammed and his 70 companions from persecution in Mecca to safety Medina. Those 70 pledged to defend him with their lives. From this point on, it was continual war with the Jews and Arabs.

Contrast this with the 300 yrs.. let me repeat that THREE HUNDRED YEARS of the growth of the Church by... "those who preached the Word"

It was during the Medinan period where a lot of the doctrines of war were firmed up in Islam and they carry on till this day.

On Indonesia.. we have the Ansuz Alliance. Just like Mohammed had the treaty of Hudrabiya and many others. Protection. Without them, the threat would be much bigger.

While I'm harsh on the immigration matter, I also believe in vigorous proclamation of the Gospel of Christ in Australia as the ultimate solution to the issue but not 'because' of that issue, no, but in Johns words

["That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life"] (1John_1:1)

It's not immigration that's causing the degradations in the environment that everyone seems so worried out. Assuming the document Divergence refers to is 'Australia's Environment- Issues and Trends 2006' (http://www.abs.gov.au/Ausstats/abs@.nsf/7d12b0f6763c78caca257061001cc588/22df603ea8680b40ca256a8a00836f8a!OpenDocument). my reading suggests that it's the 'seachange' crowd- primary retirees moving to the coast- and rural-urban migration that's putting the burdens on our environment. Also, the increasing prevalence of 1-2 person households (primary aged persons) which reduces the average occupancy in urban dwellings.

Neither of these issues seems to be created/exasperated by immigrants. Instead, these are issues caused by lack of development/opportunities in rural areas and the increasing age of our population. The 'evil' developers loathed by so many on this thread aren't providing housing for immigrants. They're providing for Australians giving up the ratrace for the tranquility of gated communities with security guards and a golf course.

Also: doubling our population in 50 years at present rates? The ABS doesn't think so- according to their worst case scenario, we won't double our numbers until somewhere near 2100 (http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3222.02004%20to%202101?OpenDocument). Their most likely case says we'll reach 28M by 2050 and only 30M by 2100. Hell, their best case provides for a peak of 25M in 2050 and a return to 22M by 2100- and that's with a annual NET immigration level of 80,000!

Immigration isn't the problem. How we deal with land use is! Too many decades of thinking we can live how we want and where we want without paying the piper is what has brought us to these straights. For a country of smart people who know of "droughts and flooding rains" and surrounded by water; to have water problems says every about complacency. Stop looking for someone else to pin our problems on and look them square in the eye. Farm crops suited to our water profile. Establish systems that're able to store 'flooding rains' for the 'droughts'. Promote development in rural areas that encourage people to move back out of the cities. Run sedans and not 4x4s in the city. Take responsibility for our impact to the environment and stop relying on the providence of nature.

Frank,
Don’t read my words as having a malicious tone

Rather read then as expressing incredulity (with a little p/fun for spice).

Incredulity that you should be unaware of the ongoing persecution of Christians & other non-Muslims in Indonesia etc. As a general observation it could be said that there are few places where Islam is dominant where the non-Muslim minority is not given a rough deal ( & an officially sanctioned rough deal at that).

It is not a sign of “tolerance” or good upbringing to ignore such facts ( as some would have us believe) it is rather more akin to appeasement & cowardice.

Mylakhrion,

I got the 53 years by a simple exponential growth calculation, assuming that the present growth rate is going to continue. Obviously future growth rates depend on government decisions and individual decisions about childbearing. However, there are some very powerful people who want massive population growth, so the growth rate can easily be increased simply by taking in more migrants. They are already supplying half our population growth.

Migrants use cars, housing, sewers, water, etc. just like everyone else. It is a bit rich to blame all environmental problems exclusively on native born Australians. The problems are with bad management (you are correct there) and total numbers. As just one example, Australian household energy consumption increased by 50% between 1975 and 1995. 24% of the increase was due to increased consumption and 76% due to population growth. The same thing is still going on. Prof. Ian Lowe, president of the Australian Conservation Foundation, was interviewed on Radio National about the last State of the Environment report. He said that a graph in the report showed increased per capita electricity consumption, but that there wasn't a graph showing the truth that population was increasing even more sharply. Not only more per capita, but a lot more caputs. There is no point in cutting individual consumption in half and then doubling the population. As the T-shirt slogan says, "Save water, the developers need it".

The government statistics on immigration numbers vastly understate the intake. Refugees don't count, even those we invite. New Zealanders don't count, nor do the people who take out New Zealand citizenship to get to Australia. Students who get a degree here in a number of fields can get a permanent resident visa without ever being counted in the immigration numbers. There are large numbers of supposedly temporary visas that are routinely renewed.

At last, some really serious note is being taken about the massive problems inflicted on our society by increased population. What we now need is a comprehensive list of the perpetrators of this cancer and how they operate. We must be talking about very few people or organizations with tremendous political persuasion.

Does anyone have an up to date list of publications which we can read to get a better handle on the subject? Also, are there any economists out there who are prepared the wade into the discussion and give us sensible, rational reasons based on all the facts for the population increase.

As with most things, when the whole story is told, people wake up and see the light. How do we get the information out there so the average man-in-the-street knows what is going on?

Divergence

I acknowledge the points you raised. I am not saying that current numbers of immigrants are correct or that immigrants don’t use resources. However, I haven’t seen anyone propose a solution to the basic issue I raised- how to sustain the current lifestyle once the baby boomers retire.

This in not a quantitative statement about the number of people in Australia. I’m not saying that we are going to ‘run out of people’. I am saying (supported by commonsense and solid evidence) that the number of people in the workforce is going to fall at the same time that the call on the government coffers will increase.

Without a way to suppliment the workforce, the solution is either to lower the living standard of all people or increase the taxation burden on the smaller workforce.

I don’t want to make this a generational fight but I’m sure I speak for the people who are going to be expected to foot the bills for the next 30 years: We're not prepared to further compromise our living standards to pay the bills for the baby boomers.

The only path is further net migration, at least for the foreseeable future.

The reality of need for further working age bodies in this country should not be at issue. However, numbers and mixes need to be debated. We need to establish, as you suggested, a stable age distribution. Over time we can gradually lower total rates as the retiree-glut falls. After all, in 30 years time most boomers are going to be pushing up daisies anyway.

Even Japan (seriously anti-immigrant) is debating how to implement a large scale immigration program. They are in far more dire straights that Australia because, to date, they have not supplemented their natural population growth with immigration.

We can support greater number of people on this continent. It just takes proper management and an attitude that stops taking the bounties of our country for granted.

Below is a chipper report of one man's experience with the brave new world that immigrants are creating in Britain (and which Philippe is begging for more of):

"Now that Tony Blair is about to vacate office, people ask him what he believes his legacy will be. It will not be Iraq, it will be the beginning of a process of the Islamisation of the UK, Balkan Britain is upon us, I have seen it first hand, I have lived a small version of it ... Shattered unconnected communities in competition with each other but with no common value system or identity, unable to join together to achieve a common goal."

http://www.westernresistance.com/blog/archives/003618.html

Philippe's article should be subtitled "beat me, whip me, more, more!!"

online_east

It would really pay for you to read what you recommend to us.

Why would you think a cliched piece of gibberish from a far left uncredentialled blog from the UK would resonate with anyone in Australia - except for the mindless far right here? It's full of race hate, confused self-pity and crude social analysis. One minute 'Doug' is spitting vemom at people whose skin colour is darker than his. The next moment it's all a conspiracy of Islam. Then he decides that the Muslims are not really to blame. They are just pawns.

Finally Doug can't decide whether the real villains are the neo-Marxists or the liberal elites - whites like Tony Blair. And in the final analysis, it's really just sour grapes because Doug couldn't sell his property - he's a sad loser.

I noticed one of his respondents suggested Doug move to Australia - a wonderful land of plenty it is described as. It must be our Multicultural policies that make it so, eh online_east?

And France and the rest of Europe are living in some fang dangled Multi Utopia Frank, and all the friction is being created by Right wing Whites?

That sounds like some spiel from Harvard anti White/ Anti Intelligence… ooo yeh, they indoctrinate on that very subject Frank, they even have a special departmental curriculum based on ‘Whiteness’ studies.

Practicing self delusional strategies is detrimental to ones health. The art for now is to detect what actually causes this pathological trait. And what causes natural consciousness to be selectively discarded.

I can answer that, and you know full well also Frank- Guilt by association or the assersion of Racism has nothing to do with it.

Guy V,

Take a look at the Sustainable Population Australia site (www.population.org.au).

Mylakhrion,

A number of European countries have had stable or even decreasing populations for some time. Finland has been doing splendidly despite very low immigration and very low population growth of any kind. They are near the top of the pops on the UN Human Development Index and the World Economic Forum Competitiveness Index. It has far less social inequality than Australia, with the top 10% making 5 times the income of the bottom 10%, instead of 13 times as much as in Australia.

A lot of hysteria about intergenerational issues has been stirred up by the politicians and corporate elite in the hopes that people like you will blame your problems on some postman who happened to have been born in 1950, rather than on themselves. So what is the solution?

Technological progress has reduced the need for workers.

Before the old age pension in Britain in the early 1920s, 75% of the men between 65 and 70 were still working, and nearly half the men between 70 and 75. We could easily increase the retirement age and/or give those baby boomers some incentives to go on working, at least part time. They have enjoyed better health care, smaller families, and better living and working conditions than their 19th century ancestors, so ought to be in even better shape for their age.

Another issue is our cultural fixation with prolonging dying. Half the money ever spent on an individual's health care is spent in the last 6 months of life, according to Richard Nicholson, the editor of the Bulletin of Medical Ethics ((London) Times Higher Education Supplement, 6/10/06). This is the main reason why old people are expensive.

Current unemployment is 11.4% counting the underemployed and discouraged workers, according to a recent column by Ross Gittins, the economics editor of the Sydney Morning Herald. Not only will we not run out of people, we won't run out of workers, either.

Online-east, I am afraid you are right and that Frankgol is completely out of step with reality. Not only is the piece by the Scotsman right, but also the contributions from the rest also point in the same direction here.

We have been too tolerant of these Muslim immigrants for too long. There are very few of them who can be trusted. I am glad that my time left on this earth is fairly short and that I will probably not be around to see the takeover of our country by Muslims, but I am sure that will happen.

The stable door is well and truly open and the horse has long since bolted.

VK3AUU says I am "is completely out of step with reality". His version of reality is: "that my time left on this earth is fairly short and that I will probably not be around to see the takeover of our country by Muslims, but I am sure that will happen".

No empirical evidence; no argument; no references; no historical trend data; nothing but fear. Oh, and a good wallop of irrational xenophobia: "We have been too tolerant of these Muslim immigrants for too long. There are very few of them who can be trusted." (My father once told me never to trust people whose eyes are too close together. Really!)

Blind fear and prejudice are the enemies of clear thinking

VK3AUU says I am "is completely out of step with reality". His version of reality is: "that my time left on this earth is fairly short and that I will probably not be around to see the takeover of our country by Muslims, but I am sure that will happen".

No empirical evidence; no argument; no references; no historical trend data; nothing but fear. Oh, and a good wallop of irrational xenophobia: "We have been too tolerant of these Muslim immigrants for too long. There are very few of them who can be trusted." (My father once told me never to trust people whose eyes are too close together. Really!)

Blind fear and prejudice are the enemies of clear thinking.

I am all for immigration, imagine what Australian cuisine would be like without the culinary delights of the Greeks, Italians, Vietnamese and all the other wonderful things multiculturalism brings.

What I am against is Muslim immigration into Australia. This culture does not want to assimilate but control.

What has Muslim immigration contributed to Australia apart from violent crime and a belief that that they are the superior race.

Wake up Australia; learn by the problems other countries are now facing with this group of people.