OZZIE “will be a difference in intelligence between different races” – surely, he will as long as majority of rednecks suppose discriminate non-Anglos in supposedly for-Anglos-only Anglo-colony of Australia.

But time brings about substantial change-as even in Germany already happened.

I graduated from monogamous school demonstrating similar educational outcome similar to WIZOGAMUS findings-so what? Race matters for racists only, and copulating is anyway leads to a similar results interracially.

James Sinnamon/dagget/various sock puppets:

"How many of those do you suppose would not jump at the opportunity to move to an industrialised western nation?"

Such a silly question I thought it was rhetorical. How could anybody possibly answer it sensibly? More hypothetical strawmen.

"Do you know that John Howard initially dropped annual immigration figures to 68,000 ...?"

No I didn't. So what?

"If you don't, then what do you intend to do about it?"

I'm a member of the Qld Greens, which is the only political party actively campaigning against this disastrous plan. What are you doing about it, besides consorting with racists and monoculturalists to whip up some xenophobic hysteria? And what good's that going to do in terms of SEQ anyway - most people who move to Qld do so from other parts of Australia, not from overseas?

"..posts which were made on my behalf by others were done so openly"

But that's the trouble, James. They weren't made on your behalf by others at all. They were made by you using various sock puppet identities - we both know that. Your persistent dishonesty about this, combined with your propensity to rely on 'evidence' of dubious provenance and veracity (e.g. "Vidal", Lines et al), relegates any arguments you may have to the 'crackpot' bin, I'm afraid. And your linking of the population issue with your apparent opposition to multiculturalism can only serve to discredit you further.

It's a pity, because you do seem to have a couple of good ideas and a certain amount of misguided enthusiasm. You need to realise that you also need to be credible for your ideas to have any force - and you are certainly not credible, if your performance in this thread is anything to go by.

MichaelK
"I graduated from a monogomous school"

Reading your last post, I doubt you ever went to school.

CJ Morgan,

Racism isn't really the right word. The migrants who have been causing the most problems are usually not the ones who are racially most distant from the Anglo majority. Culture is far more important than race here.

If immigration numbers were cut to stabilise the population, I believe this would automatically fix the social cohesion problem, even if immigration were completely nondiscriminatory, provided that any prospective migrants were vetted individually. The US cut immigration back to around zero net between 1921 and 1965 from the very high levels of the early 20th century. The result was a reduction in social inequality and more assimilation, as the ethnic "ghettos" were unable to replenish their first generation migrants from overseas. It also became harder to cocoon oneself from the host society, so people who really disliked it would have been more likely to go home. The Center for Immigration Studies has a lot of articles on US immigration history

http://www.cis.org

What worries me is the scenario where the sociopaths in Parliament and the corporate elite keep immigration high, allow the formation and maintenance of ethnic ghettos, and continue to degrade the environment. When there aren't enough resources to go around people will eventually find something to fight about, but big ethnic and religious differences cause it to happen more easily.

Divergence,
Now that this thread has partly shifted to immigration matters, I will put my two bobs worth in.

I have read and reread you posts relative to immigration and mainly agree with you. Big busness wants high immigration and while ever big business gives massive donations to both the major parties that will continue as 'He who pays the piper calls the tune'. Sales profit is the motive, not what is best for Australia.

We are badly in need of a population policy debate from the major parties and the public. The major parties have colluded not to publicly debate immigration issues so we won't get that.

After 35 years of failed multiculturalism we now have integration which is a step in the right direction. I am also hopefull the a discriminatory immigration policy will now take place so that applicants for immigration will be suject to integration assessment so those that, from our experience, will not or cannot be part of our community will no longer be accepted. As you say this is cultural and not racial.

It makes no sense to keep importing those people that cause disruption to social cohession.

Pity we cannot lower the numbers as well. Other countries appear to get by without population growth.

Banjo, what 35 years of failed multiculturalism are you talking about? And "integration" is not the opposite of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism is about accepting and celebrating the cultural differences that aren't in conflict with Australian laws and principles of equality and liberty. I don't think anyone could argue with a straight face that importing the cuisine, the music, the dance forms, the languages that are associated with non-Anglo cultures has been detrimental to our country. Of course cultural attitudes towards families, individualism vs collectivism, respect for authority etc. vary too, but I haven't seen this generate any serious threat to our social cohesion. Attitutes towards equality and liberty are arguably the most challenging aspect of multiculturalism, but 100 years ago Western views regarding these principles were very different too, so are clearly malleable with time (and as I pointed out earlier, the UNHRD was officially recognised worldwide well over 50 years ago). I absolute agree that we shouldn't even accept permanent residents who reject these principles (e.g., believing that Sharia law should always be honoured), and I think we could do with intelligent tests that can filter such potential residents out (testing at the time of citizenship is too late, and questions such as "Do you pledge to respect the Australian rule of law" are useless).

As far as our total immigration numbers go, the first priority should be to ensure that the current population can be supported sustainably (looking at infrastructure, housing supply, water supply, food supply, GHG emissions etc.). The second priority is to ensure that the population pyramid is a sustainable shape: if we stopped all immigration today, it would almost certainly become dangerously top-heavy in the next few decades. Rapid population decline is possibly more dangerous than the current rate of increase.

FWIW, it's not true that the government hasn't considered long term immigration impacts:

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/population/ageing/ageing12.htm

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1999-2000/2000rp05.htm

(which states "Given current trends in fertility and mortality, annual net migration to Australia of at least 80 000 persons is necessary to avoid spiralling population decline and substantial falls in the size of the labour force").