Viking13 – Yiddish is what I am talking about! The Jewish communities spoke this language instead of the language of the community they lived in.

English also has a close relationship to German but due to the English and German communities be separated by such distance the languages have changed so much so they we don’t understand one another . The same can be said for Yiddish but the Jews lived across the road from the Germans so distance can not explain the language difference their. It must be something else and that something else is Jews forming ghettos and refusing to teach their children the native language and refusing to have their children ever marry a native of Europes. That’s their choice but they also have to wear the consequences of their choices as well.

CJ – No body here has said that the Nazi are good or the holocaust was good all that has been sadi is that the Jews are not angels as people like you try to portray them as. They are actually a very nasty selfish group of people. Look at Israel for example.

At what stage CJ do you think groups like the Jews need to change their attitude due to them pissing off all the other people around them or is it a case that because they are the little guys they are always right?

Spikey wrote on Monday, 15 September 2008 5:01:02 PM (+10:00)

"While not conceding your immigration figures are wrong, you now add natural increase to immigration ...

My figures were not wrong and it is dishonest for you to allege that they were. I used the term 'immigration' and not 'migration' and didn't refer to natural increases. I assumed that others already understood how each of these components combined to give our overall population increase figure.

Spikey wrote: "... to try to make an argument about...something."

Why don't you just make the effort to read my post properly instead of further adding to the noise on this forum (as if there was not more than enough already)?

I wrote: "Why has the author made no reference to the fact that immigration to Australia has, as a result of a decision announced by Immigration Minister Evans, higher than it has ever been (well over 300,000)?"

The point stands, if, in an article claiming that Australia's system is 'draconian', the author neglects to mention that immigration and population growth is at an all time high then the article is misleading.

---

Unfortunately. It is difficult to pin down exactly what 'immigration' is and for this we need to to thank the ABS who have not provided data that I can easily understand.

If anyone can tell me how they arrived at the net population increase figure of 331,900 from the data on the abovementioned spreadsheet, I would be interested to know.

The figure I get is an EVEN HIGHER figure of 364,700. Overall arrivals should be 446,400 (=SUM(E114:E117)) overall departures should be 226,400 (=SUM(F114:F117)) births should be 285,200 (=SUM(B114:B117)) and deaths should be 137,800(=SUM(H114:H117))

446,400 - 226,400 + 285,200 - 137,800 = 364,700 (NOT 331,900)

Sharkfin,

You really need, at every step, acknowledge the monstrous crime of the Holocaust if you want to stray into the area that you have and be able to absolutely rigorously back up what you say, otherwise people will suspect that you are a Holocaust denier or a Nazi apologist.

I don't regard any people on the planet, including European Jews, Armenians, Muslims, Anglo-Celtic Australians, Germans, etc. as being either wholly virtuous or completely evil. I don't completely discount the possibility that Jews, as a group may, have collectively done something to cause some Germans to bear resentment towards them and turn to the Nazis.

However, as far as I can tell, the Jews were, as a group, loyal citizens of Germany and were made a scapegoat for the failure of the capitalist system and for Germany's defeat.

Possibly evidence to the contrary exists, but you haven't yet produced anything that looks different to me from Nazi propaganda and you have not provided any evidence for what you write.

Easy, I'm surprised that as a part-Jew you don't know more about the culture. Yiddish is in fact Middle High German! There are/were many dialects, with eastern speakers incorporating Slavic words, but in essence Yiddish was German with a few Hebrew words added (such as "synagogue" which entered both German and English anyway) and written in Hebrew script (in similar fashion to Jawi in Malaysia- Bahasa Melayu (Malay) written in Arabic script).

What aspect of Israel leads you to say of Jews " a very nasty selfish group of people. Look at Israel for example."? Is it nasty and selfish for a people to want a homeland, moreover their ancestral homeland? Why aren't "Palestinians" equally nasty and selfish for wanting a land which, in large part, they have no ancestral claim to (with "Palestinians" in large being comprised of Syrian, Lebanese and Egyptian Arabs' immigrant descendants). Why aren't Muslims "nasty and selfish" for claiming Jerusalem as a "holy city" when it is mentioned exactly zero times in the Quran, while Jews (and Christians) have an actual and real claim to the city?

Spikey, we'll have to agree to disagee on the sources and transport modes of illegals.

From my point of view, while I disagree with keeping "asylum seekers" incarcerated for years at a time, there is no way these people should be allowed to go straight out into the community (and yes, the term "queue jumpers" is right). Frankly, I'm disturbed by the level of immigrant numbers now and into the future, no matter what their origin, with the singular exception of skilled migration.

Spain allowed near unfettered migration for years, to the extent that somewhere approaching 10% of the population comprises unskilled migrants- who could be absorbed to an extent while the economic/building boom was on. Now that unemployment amongst native Spaniards is increasing, guess where resentment is aimed? a) at the migrants and b) at the government whose slack immigration policies led to the dilemma (of course, a notoriously PC/left wing government which played the "racist"," Islamophobia", "xenophobia" card at every sign of adverse comment.

Banjo,

You’re still getting it wrong but I continue to do your homework for you. The idea that unauthorised arrivals by air are simply put on the next available flight out and that “…we do not have to house, feed and keep them like the boat people” is fallacious.

The Department of Immigration & Citizenship Annual Report for 2006-07 shows quite clearly:
Of the 4,718 people taken into immigration detention during 2006-07,
• 595 were unauthorised arrivals of whom 584 arrived by air and 11 by boat (compared with 703 unauthorised air and 63 boat arrivals the year before)
• 1,797 people had overstayed their visas compared to 2,099 in 2005-06
• 1,437 illegal were foreign fishers compared to 2,888 in 2005-06
• 889 were ‘others’ compared to 757 in 2005-06.

During 2006-07, 5,044 people were released or removed. They included:
• 22 unauthorised boat arrivals compared to 141 in 2005-06
• 597 unauthorised air arrivals compared to 700 in 2005-06
• 1,836 people who had been living in the community but had overstayed compared to 2,285 in 2005-06
• 1,677 illegal foreign fishers compared to 2,691 in 2005-06
• 912 ‘others’ compared to 809 in 2005-06.
http://www.immi.gov.au/about/reports/annual/2006-07/html/outcome1/output1_3_5.htm

As you can see, many more people in detention arrived unauthorised by air than by boat.

Time to bring yourself up to date with your assessment of the ‘boat people’ myth. In the light of the unassailable fact that they are vastly outnumbered by unauthorised arrivals by air, you need a better explanation why the media, politicians and OLO posters continue to beat the ‘boat people’ drum.

Daggett, Monday: <<…immigration to Australia has as a result of a decision announced by Immigration Minister Evans higher than it has ever been (well over 300,000)>>

Daggett, Friday: << Unfortunately. It is difficult to pin down exactly what 'immigration' is and for this we need to thank the ABS who have not provided data that I can easily understand…The figure I get is an EVEN HIGHER figure of 364,700.>>

If you don’t understand the figures, why chastise me for telling you they’re wrong?

C.J. “there is far greater genetic diversity within the so-called races than there is between them”

That’s why I said I prefer the word TRIBE. Or present closest bloodlines living together or recently living together. I only used the word race because I was no doubt talking to people who talk in terms of race when discussing these issues. It was to make it clearer for them. I notice that you yourself had to use the word races when making your point for exactly the same reason I had to use it.

You have hit on the exact reason I prefer the word tribe to ethnic origins because it is really RECENT HISTORICAL tribal bloodline that people are defending or trying to gain a better life for by conquering resources, when they go to war. They say we are all related because we came out of Africa. Maybe so,but any white tribe can SEE, as can any black tribe from Africa that those ethnic connections are too many thousands of years ago to create any kind of feeling of brotherhood or the need to protect in time of war.

All of mankind KNOWS who their closest bloodline is on earth today(the ones they need to provide for and protect in time of war). They know because they live among them or have recently migrated from them in the last few generations or so. Talk of obscure ethnic connections from long ago and ethnic diversity are attempts to persaude mankind that we are all brothers and sisters. I’ll tell you right now when war breaks out the tribes will know exactly who they are fighting for and all this talk about multiple ethnicity will mean nothing to them. Thats why I perfer the word TRIBE,

I havent had time to look up the anthropology yet as I am busy packing to go away but will do so, although I suspect what I say above shows that all that talk of ethnicity is irrelevant.