Since we are concerned about mass immigration to this country let me ask: does anyone have a fixed number beyond which we risk becoming another country altogether with an ethnic mix that isnt to our advantage?
Should we even be thinking of "to our ADVANTAGE"? Is that an unreasonable concept bordering on the racist?

Why I ask that is looking at the problem that Israel has.It is home to those Arabs who didnt join the Arab diaspora but after 1947 decided that they would risk all by choosing to stay in Israel albeit as a community that was despised and regarded with hostility especially after the resumption of the Israeli-Palestinian wars.They even have the right to vote.They have representatives in the Knesset even if they have only token representation.

The Israelis know it is only a matter of time for the fecung Arab Israelis outnumber the Israelis.This is going to re-define Israeli democracy because to preserve their Israeli identity these Arabs are going to have to be disenfranchised.As it is they are being pushed back year after year into resuced Arab land where they have autonomy.This is creating a powderkeg as the density of Arab population grows each year. Each Arab family has an average of 4 kids.The Israelis reached ZPG many years ago and have to depend on keeping up nubbers by the diaspora having to emigrate to Israel.

The story is palpably evident in Belgium Holland and the UK.Is it going to be repeated in Austyralia and New Zealand?
socratease

Anna Saulwick states:

"The Opposition has taken a familiar line. Senator Chris Ellison, the Shadow Minister for Immigration and Citizenship, described the move as a knee-jerk reaction, which sends the message that Australia has softened its border protection. If we are seeing any kind of jerk reaction, however, we are seeing it from the Opposition themselves. They have responded to a great moral challenge by restating old arguments, which are unsupported by any research, no longer resonate with the public, and fracture their own party ranks."

On the contary, the arguements still resonate strongly with the public,as shown in a very recent poll indicating that most think the refugee level is too high:

Michelle Grattan
August 5, 2008 The Age

A MAJORITY of Australians think the country is taking too many refugees, according to an Essential Research poll.

The poll — which comes in the wake of the Government's announcement last week that it was liberalising mandatory detention policy — also found Australians still retain a hardline attitude towards asylum seekers.

Less than a quarter of respondents (24%) said past policy on asylum seekers had been too tough, while 62% said it had been right or not tough enough.

Those in higher income brackets were more likely to believe the policy had been too tough; those on lower incomes were more inclined to believe it was not tough enough.

Under the Rudd Government's changes to detention policy, unauthorised arrivals will be held for a limited period for identity, health and security checks, but beyond that people will only be detained if they present a risk to the community or have repeatedly absconded.

In the online poll of 1013, people were asked about the increase in Australia's refugee intake to 13,500 annually: 52% said this was too large; a quarter said it was about right; and 6% said it was too small.

Refugee intake by even 20,000 a year isnt too much as long as we know who it is who will share our cultural heritage and will not be inimical to our status as a secular democracy.
Be choosy!Yeah!!
This means being discriminatory ...so what?
It is for our own protection and ultimately for our own survival as the Australia we love and have a duty to preserve.

socratease

franklin

So an opinion poll found that most Australians polled think Australia is taking too many refugees?

What did you expect? After a decade and more of government manipulation of public opinion and suppression of the facts about refugees:

* lies that demonised 'boat people' (most unauthorisd refugees arrive by air), 'queue jumpers' (when there weren't any queues to join), 'illegals' (when asylum seekers were perfectly entitled under international law to seek asylum), 'children overboard' (when the whole story plus faked photos was cooked up for an impending election) ;

* mandatory, and in some cases indefinite, detention of people including young children who had done nothing wrong but who were portrayed as criminals;

* a supine media that hadn't the stomach for investigative journalism and were content to run Government media releases as 'news';

* the banning of lawyers and refugee advocates from entering detention centres and orders from the very top that no refugees' stories were to be humanised and personalised but must be seen as just a large threatening mass;

* no moral leadership, but instead the immoral exploitation of detention of innocent people to 'deter others'

There was also a time when the majority of Australians wanted Australia to keep the death penalty, 'keep' Australia white (it never was), keep the disabled in sheltered workshops, and ban women from public bars.

Thankfully politicians and other community leaders showed leadership on these moral issues and brought the public around to a more enlightened position. The late Peter Andren, the Independent member for Calare had to guts to confront the many rednecks in his electorate on refugee issues. Starting in a marginal seat, in successive elections he gradually built up a very safe seat by being honest and informing his voters as to why he took a moral rather than a cynical populist position.

Oh for more Peter Andrens in our Parliament!

Spikey
in the 1980's both Assad of Syria and King Hassan of Jordan, both neighbours of Palestine, tried the humane approach to the problem,not the POLITICAL one. Guess what happened?
If you dont know then perhaps you shouldnt be talking about things about which you know nothing.
There were rebellions in both countries and those seeking refuge from tyranny soon became terrorists.Both uprisings were put down with brutal force. The Muslim Brotherhood in northern Syria were wiped out over 10,000 of them whilst the Hashemite bedouin tribesmen saved their Kingdom.Now these countries grant only 3 month visas to refugees. As do Malaysia and Indonesia.And these are Muslim countries!We give them all permanent residence.
Before Andrew again claims I hate them all let me say I strongly believe that the genuine refugees who are willing to live peacefully in our SECULAR democracy are very welcome. I'll be glad to be the first to welcome them. But tell me,how careful were we in vetting Ben Brikka and those who conspired to massacre the Australians who went to the AFL finals in Melbourne and who are now standing trial?Once found guilty they will probably be required to do 100 hrs community service and undergo re-education...till the next time!

Andrew will hate me saying this but we need to enforce stricter monitoring without willy-nilly letting them all settle raise families and then years later prosecuting them. These jihardists need to succeed only once in evading detection before they kill thousands of us.

Go on,Andy, call me a raving racist again.Your'e a joke.

socratease

Spikey opines:

“There was also a time when the majority of Australians wanted Australia to keep the death penalty, 'keep' Australia white (it never was), keep the disabled in sheltered workshops, and ban women from public bars.Thankfully politicians and other community leaders showed leadership on these moral issues and brought the public around to a more enlightened position.”

It is inherently flawed and misleading to argue moral equivalence between the death penalty issue etc and the asylum seeker issue as they are totally separate issues. The asylum seeker issue wasn’t back and white, it was shades of gray, as is every major issue. A reasoned and logically sound moral argument could equally be made against Australia's humanitarian refugee resettlement program being held captive to people smugglers and secondary movement asylum seekers.

Spikey opines:

“After a decade and more of government manipulation of public opinion and suppression of the facts about refugees:”

In 2006 the Swiss electorate voted overwhelmingly in favour of regulations to prevent abuses of the asylum system. Was that a case of manipulation and suppression of facts by the Swiss government or merely the electorate voicing its opinion. In reality,the Swiss Electorate seems to be in agreement with the Australian electorate on the asylum seeker issue.

Swiss Asylum, Immigration Laws Ratified
The Associated Press
Sunday, September 24, 2006; 12:32 PM

Swiss voters ratified new asylum and immigration laws Sunday making it more difficult for refugees to receive assistance. More than 67 percent voted in favor of the stricter rules on asylum, originally approved by the Swiss government in December. The proposal was overwhelmingly accepted in all of Switzerland's 26 cantons, according to results released by the federal government.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/24/AR2006092400296.html

The international refugee system has become very dysfunctional and the distinction between economic migrants and refugees has now unfortunately become very blurred.

Adrienne Millbank, an academic from Monash University, wrote a very informative paper entitled “DARK VICTORY OR CIRCUIT BREAKER: AUSTRALIA AND THE INTERNATIONAL REFUGEE SYSTEM POST TAMPA” detailing the dysfunctionality of the international refugee system, which can be downloaded from:

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/view/issue/?volume=11&issue=2