Actually SCOTTY, polls indicate support in Switzerland for the SVP (the party pushing for deportation of convicted immigrants) is about what it was 4 years ago (~26%), though the election in a few days will be the true test.
In 2000, the Swiss overwhelming voted *not* to end immigration into the country.

In the end though I agree - democracy is the most reasonable way to determine what a country's immigration level should be. The day that a significiant percentage of Australians want immigration levels reduced, they will vote accordingly, and the powers that be will be forced to listen. For now, it's very much a noisy minority clamouring about how immigration is destroying Australia.

Scotty, another wonderful effort, you must have stayed up all night working on that, you really are starting to develop into a deep intellectual thinker. On Line Opinion would not the same without you.
Cheers

wizofaus wrote, "The day that a significant percentage of Australians want immigration levels reduced, they will vote accordingly, and the powers that be will be forced to listen."

I dealt with this in my post above at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96361

High immigration has been unpopular for decades. Howard won office largely because of the unpopularity of the corruptly administered high-immigration program of Labor. Nevertheless, Howard has since, shamefully and deceitfully, even outdone Labor in this regard.

---

wizofaus wrote, "I too am concerned about Australia losing its technological edge, but how is this to do with immigration?".

High immigration has been justified on the grounds that we needed skilled clever immigrants to maintain our technological edge. My post of 16 October at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6482#96483 showed that Australia with a stable and much lower population was able to achieve that by 1942, so that argument is clearly rubbish.

The fact that so much of this country's energy and resources is being diverted to build residences necessary to sustain population growth, instead of, for example, universities, and more basic scientific research, directed towards making this society self-sufficient and truly sustainable, is one reason why Australia has lost its technological edge since then.

I wasn't arguing that Australia cut itself off completely from the rest of the world and have no immigration, but I do think it needed to be done in a much more thoughtful and controlled manner. If we look at the congested crowded unplanned, resource-hungry messes that our major cities including Brisbane, Sydney and Melbourne have become, then it is obvious that this has not been done, and if we don't act now, past poor practices will continue and will make an already bad situation worse.

We should have certainly made certain that every new immigrant agree to support the basic values of this society, including a respect for the rights of women, gays and children within their own communities. Instead, misogynist attitudes, both towards non-Muslim Australian women and women within these communities, has been allowed to become entrenched, largely because the multicultural lobby denied that a problem existed for many years.

Mr Wizofaust, I hardly need to “cherrypick” examples of ethnic crime when my bucket is already overflowing. Even OLO has presented this article confirming my view.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=991

The best way to ensure that hostile cultures do not take root in this county, Wizofaust, is to not import people whose cultures these cultures belong to. We only have to look at Britain to see a portent of things to come. If we import Jamaicans or Muslims, they will bring their culture with them, and we will eventually get into just as big a mess as the Poms.

On the subject of the heritability of criminal behaviour, even the Australian Institute of Criminology published a paper which ruefully admitted that the evidence for this is very strong. (Is There a Genetic Susceptibility to Engage in Criminal Acts?, No.262, October 2003).

As to whether anybody has made a study to determine whether blacks are more susceptible to criminal behaviour, I don’t know. But I do know that the US NAACP successfully lobbied the Congress to withdraw funding from any molecular biologist who dared to present evidence that race and crime is linked. I also know that the NAACP also prevented the geneticists from the Human Genome Project from hosting a conference in the USA entitled “Genetics and Crime”. That conference was subsequently held in London, with the press pointedly excluded.

I know all that because I read a book by Peter Breggin, (The War on Children) a person noted for opposing any suggestion that genetics and crime are linked. Breggin openly brags in that book about his power mobilise political forces to cower the scientists.

Seems to me like the scientists are sitting on dynamite which a lot of people want them to shut up about.

Hello Rainier, long time no see.

In answer to you question "What is racism"? My answer is "To engage left wingers in fair debate and win."

redneck
The argument of race as a determinant of culture or social behavior has been around for many hundreds of years. Much of it was the justification for slavery, colonisation, and segregation, but you fail to include any of that in your hypothesis, for example the ‘one drop rule’ furthering the legitimacy of a greater white race was only fully abolished in America in 1983.

The thing is that this debate over whether the color of a persons skin as a basic element of human nature, or social construct is fixed on this idea that ‘blacks’ are an object of observation. Cultural anthropology and neo-Darwinian synthesis, has demonstrated that the category of "race" was not scientifically legitimate, least of all the attempt to conflate skin color, or the amount of melanin in the body, with any specific population. Geneticists have found that, in fact, there is more genetic difference within the definable groups of white and black people than there is between the actual groups themselves, thus giving rise to the conclusion that “racial categories that purport to designate any of us are too rigid and oversimplified to fit anyone accurately”.

That piece that you offered “Is There a Genetic Susceptibility to Engage in Criminal Acts” SPECIFICALLY states that;
“… the majority of genetic research on antisocial behaviors has been conducted on Caucasian populations, and does not aim to identify race-specific susceptibility alleles for antisocial behavior.”, yes indeed there is a genetic influence but it does not purport to a specific ‘race’, it’s a mix between genetics and ‘nature and nurture’ for every human being.

“Seems to me like the scientists are sitting on dynamite which a lot of people want them to shut up about.” Please enlighten us with some evidence.

Its sentiments such as these that are going to continue to exist as long as there is this engrained prejudice in Western culture, racism is largely ‘the white mans burden’. Whiteness and blackness only exists in the mind of those that feel the need to hold onto it as a source of identity and pride

redneck, thanks for your definition. It’s a pity you don't see the need to provide a provide a proper answer. but I suppose for you it is. If by left wing you mean people who believe in decency and have learnt from history and personal experience that racism is wrong then I'm happy for you to continue to believe you win arguments here. On a similar line of thought, my dog Spike thinks he's human. Compared to you he probably is