C.J. Morgan,

It seems to me that your persistant criticism of Daggett crossed over some time ago to harassment by virtue of repetition alone. The noticeable impact has been to focus Dagget on yourself and away from the debate. If you are truly concerned about 'plausible denial', why haven't you taken your complaint to the moderators of the forum? Or, if you feel that your charge lacks evidence, why not write an article about the ethics of multiple identities on online forums?

I have noticed that where Daggett has posted several successful articles on online opinion these have also attracted a number of repeat posters who I think are not sincere and whose posts verge on trolling. This disquieted me because I felt that Daggett (James Sinnamon) had something important to say which was not being expressed elsewhere.

Apart from this I would like to see posters to this article debate the definition of 'criminal' and 'criminality', which I think are terms used very naively and without regard to their intrinsic political nature.

wizofaus,

I seem to detect a sleight of hand. Immigration has always been strongly opposed by the majority of Australians, not simply "that more than half of all Australians have some concern that our immigration level is probably too high".

That is why he won in 1996. (And I voted against him then and will do the same in 2007), and why he played on Australian's oppostion to high imigrationduring the Tampa crisis. Nevertheless he has since sneakily ramped up immigation to 300,000 and 'me too' Rudd plans to do the same.

What sort of a 'democracy' so blatantly ignores the wishes of its own people?

---

CJ Morgan wrote, "I believe that in some places this kind of logic is called 'plausible deniability'. ...."

Yes, I admit it. I also had prior knowlege of the AWB bribery to Saddam Hussein's regime.

CJ Morgan continued, "... I really detest this kind of dishonesty, ..."

As you should.

CJ Morgan continued, "... which is why I've persisted in getting James to expose his shameful tactics."

Well, please take a bow.

Now, were you intending to say anything else?

Tolerate a migrant influx doing you favours only – and the more time passed the more educated and feeling-themselves-equally-biological the newcomers became.

Does Australia really need the equal non-Anglo folks in?

Hardly.

Daggett, you say "immigration has always been strongly opposed by the majority of Australians" - and I ask for the evidence for this. I've yet to see anyone provide it. If it's true, why is the vote for One Nation and the Greens so pitiful?

And to suggest that this was the primary reason Howard was elected in '96 is a little preposterous - Keating was widely disliked for a number of reasons, of which high immigration was, at best, an issue of medium import for some voters. See http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv4n4/bettsi.htm

(Which, BTW, contains evidence that a majority of Australians have been - to some degree - opposed to the current levels of immigration. This is NOT the same as claiming they have been STRONGLY opposed to immigration full stop).

And no, democracy is never perfect. It just happens to be better than all the other forms of government that have been tried.

Wizofaus,

You are setting up a straw man. Has anyone here said that they want no immigration at all? Immigration can be a good thing in moderation, bringing cultural and educational advantages to the host community and giving some gifted people opportunities to develop their talents that they never would have had at home. Daggett means "strongly opposed to mass migration", migration in such numbers that it blows out the population, thus putting excess pressure on the environment, grossly dilutes the bargaining power of ordinary workers, inflates housing costs, and threatens social cohesion and personal freedom.

As you know, there have been no referenda on immigration numbers. Both major parties oppose citizen initiated referenda and have a bipartisan policy of mass migration. Voting for a minor party in the lower house usually does no good, because there is no proportional representation. The media and donations from the corporate elite are used to oppose anyone who threatens to upset the apple cart. Mass migration is a slow motion disaster, but people have a lot more immediate worries, like how they will pay the bills if they lose their penalty rates or keep the house if their interest rates go up (or whether there will be a capital strike if the Greens really do get into power). They tend to vote on these more immediate issues. Some of us are concerned enough to put incumbent politicians last.

This is from Ted Trainer's article in People and Place (vol. 11, 2003, pp. 16-24) criticising the 2002 CSIRO Future Dilemmas report, which presented projections of the effects of various population policies, from immediate stabilisation to doubling to 40 million.

"It could be argued the Report deals only with the few decades in which Australia is likely to live well by using up the last of its mineral and energy resource capital. It notes that in 50 years there will probably be few if any minerals left to export, or petroleum or gas, and land degradation might by then have seriously reduced our capacity to export agricultural produce. Meanwhile we will have added people, who will have increased the need to import, but will make little contribution to our capacity to earn export income. This is because export income comes mostly from mining and agriculture which employ few workers. We also will have built much bigger cities with proportionately more difficult problems of air pollution, congestion, and soon, in turn, multiplying infrastructure and resource demands."