Hello? FrankGol, where are you?
It's been 3 and a half days now. You were commenting every day before (sometimes twice a day).

Maybe it's because every time you say something you shoot yourself in the foot, then put your foot in your mouth!
(Oh no, symbolic language overload!)

Do you have an case to support your opinion?
One would think with all the serious thought you've given the subject, you would have a prepared response (an actual argument, not character assassination) for dealing with fools who spout "crude drivel".

Or is it that you know deep inside there is an inherent illogicality to multicultural immigration, and as soon as you try to put an argument in words, I will detect any flaw and "pounce".
I'll rip it to shreds.

Maybe my question wasn't clear enough?
I'll try again, in the most precise wording I can think of:

Why is a large-quantity culturally-disparate culturally-indifferent migrant intake/selection policy more preferable than any other possible migrant intake/selection policy, for Australia today?

Is that precise enough?

And this question has nothing to do with migration that has already occurred, or with post-migration "integration" policy.

Present your case!
If you have one that can withstand scrutiny by the "master wordsmith".

Two weeks (so far, I presume it will be an eternity) since my request that FrankGol present a case *supporting* massive multicultural immigration.

The silence isn't golden, it's pathetic.

I should have known though. The "huff and puff" Big Bad Wolf routine intented to intimidate dissenters is so typical of shallow propagandists.

When presented with a real challenge they run away like scaredy-cats. And hope you won't notice their absence.

Can *anyone* help him out?
I can't believe, in a supposedly advanced intelligent society, that we should have a government policy accepting massive multicultural immigration, if there is *no supporting argument* for it!

Don't governments need to justify their choices?
If not, then they can do whatever they want, and criticisms of insane dictators would be totally invalid.
They rule, so shut up!

"We, the government, don't need to justify any of our laws or policies, so from now on, all lefthanded citizens can only eat chocolate icecream, never strawberry, and only on Wednesdays!"

Where is the case *for* massive multicultural immigration?
Or more precisely: Where is the case *for* a large-quantity culturally-disparate culturally-indifferent migrant intake/selection policy, for Australia today?

Anybody?

Shockadelic

I’m sorry you’ve missed me so much. I know I said on 2 August 2007: ‘One last try and then I give up.’

But I am sympathetic to your withdrawal symptoms - or is it dependency syndrome?

So in simple language let me say this:

1. Immigration policy is about who comes to settle in this country, from what origins and how many.

2. Multicultural policy is about the settlement process and the social interaction between ethnic groups within the Australian society (including the majority groups).

So it’s an illusory idea to ask for a case supporting what you call ‘massive multicultural immigration’.

But here’s what I’ll do for you, Shockadelic. I’ll tell you where you can read about the Government’s reasons for supporting mass immigration - and why they supported ‘multiculturalism’ until they changed the word to ‘integration’ this year.

On a website run by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship you’ll find more than 100 Fact Sheets.

http://www.immigration.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/index.htm

I recommend you read at least the following numbers (updates):
• 1. Immigration - the Background – (June 2007)
• 2. Key Facts in Immigration – (July 2007)
• 4. More than 60 Years of Post-war Migration – (January 2007)
• 6. The Evolution of Australia's Multicultural Policy – (June 2007)
• 7. "Diversity Works!": Australia's Competitive Advantage – (January 2007)
• 8. Abolition of the 'White Australia' Policy – (January 2007)

If you’re not happy with the Government’s justifications, I suggest you contact the PM and your local member (and/or vote against them in November).

I think it might be prudent to refrain from calling them ‘insane dictators’; but your line about ‘all lefthanded citizens can only eat chocolate icecream, never strawberry, and only on Wednesdays’ might appeal, especially if you recommend it come with GST attached.

Thanks for copying-and-pasting more government documents, FrankGol.
Don't even think of putting forth an argument in your own words.

I read them. I see a lot of "what", but not a lot of "why".

Strange, your quotes of earlier politicians are used to show they were "wrong", but *recent* politicians couldn't be wrong too?

The word multicultural means:
consisting of or relating to *more than one* culture.

Multi = more than one, cultural = cultural.
Understand?

I have also deliberately, repeatedly, defined *my* use of this word to mean "culturally-disparate".
This was "perfectly clear" in my *precise* question.

Integration (and Multicultural-ism) only concerns the *aftermath* of immigration, not the original selection criteria.

There are two main categories to the government's argument: social and economic.

Social:
There's no lack of women like in the 1860s, no destruction of almost an entire continent like after WWII.

The government's own documents show the natural increase (births/deaths) isn't declining but stable.
Our population size wouldn't decline without immigrants, it'd remain the same.

Growth? It's crowding and polluting the countries the immigrants are escaping from.
We don't want the same conditions here!

Emigrants? Half were originally immigrants!
The other half could be replaced with people from *similar* cultures.

Economic:
More people means more production, more consumption, more taxes, more services. Well, Duh!
That doesn't mean *per capita* wealth is increasing!

Past economic conditions are not today's conditions.
There's no gold rush, no need for camel handlers to explore the outback.
Manufacturing is moving offshore (ironically to India and China, sources of many immigrants!).

Today's market is idea-driven, online, computerised.
You don't need *more people* to produce more wealth under such market conditions.

The government claims its policies are "in the interests of the individual and society as a whole".

So did Torquemada, Vlad the Impaler, Robespierre and Hitler.
Stalin's "economically ideal" collectivisation of farming caused a famine which killed six million Russians.

No wonder I'm a *little suspicious* of people promoting "ideals" that will *improve* a society that never needed much improvement.

The PM didn't post comments here, you did.
Answer the question.

Shockadelic

I value my time. I haven't got any to waste on further remedial tutorials for you. Do your own reading.

But it's going to be hard for you if you continue to try to think with your mind shut.

Shockadelic- FrankGol’s exchange of messages in perfectly plain English allows two-cent intrusion by less proficient in playing words to admit, that profound greed of discriminating on mere biological grounds, those ripping off money from public in own pockets while substantiating public-paid accounts of mates-bureaucrats enjoying exemplified for “a free world” perks to a great extent based on a mere number of a cattle “being served”, grounds any “humanistic” migration policy of the geo-politically biggest xenophobic copy-cat of British racism in southern hemisphere.