Spikey wrote:

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

The Article you cited at http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23714642-421,00.html gave the total immigration program was "more than 300,000". That's a figure I have heard a lot. I recall that Rudd once mentioned that figure in the 2007 election campaign and it's about what the immigration lobbyists are demanding. Perhaps I was careless to repeat that figure, but it seems to me that your claimed "net migration" figure of 120,000 does not give the complete picture.

As just one example a pdf document at http://www.mccrindle.com.au/wp_pdf/AustraliaPopulationMap.pdf downloadable from http://www.mccrindle.com.au/ gives a NET MIGRATION figure of 177,000 out of a total population growth figure of 315,900 (which is curiously less than the ABS figure of 331,900 for the 12 months to 331,900).

If the immigration figure is under 300,000 then that is an enormous relief to me, but the fact remains that it is still obviously far to high for the benefit of existing residents, not to mention the environment.

As just one example, see story "Water prices will soar to help pay for $9bn grid in south-east Queensland" at http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23684769-2702,00.html

Why are we paying increased water rates to build grids in South East Queensland or desalination plants in NSW or Victoria?

Clearly, if our population had not grown because economists insisted that it was necessary for our economic prosperity, our (relatively speaking) natural and cheaper water supply infrastructure would have been able to meet our needs. Now, it is necessary to pay for for more technologically complex and expensive means to fix our system. As with water all the infrastructure costs are becoming more expensive per capita now that we have exceeded our optimum population size. Somehow this has not been factored into the economic models of pro-population growth propagandists.

My point remains: Why in article, which claims that Australia's immigration system is "draconian," is a critical fact that our immigration rate is at a record high, which already exceeds the record that Howard established, not mentioned.

As for Spikey's elaborate statistical argument, that seeks to discount the concern that unauthorised arrivals by sea will increase if effective deterrences (whether custodial or not) are not employed, I refer people to the article "Tiny Lampedusa struggles with tide of clandestine immigration" at http://candobetter.org/node/712 in which the Mayor of Lampedusa is quoted:

"It is an uninterrupted influx, we cannot cope. The immigrants are escaping war or famine.
This is the nearest port from North Africa, that is why they all end up here. And here nothing
functions anymore: the rubbish collection, the sewers, the water supply, the hospital. With
6,000 inhabitants plus the tourists, we must ration even the water to provide for the immigrants.
The desalination plant cannot cope. Meanwhile, there are thousands of other refugees ready to
leave from Libya."

---

Upon reflection, it was valid for Sharkfin to have raised the issue of tribalism even if it wanders into the historic minefield of the Nazi Holocaust. To question whether the existence of a large religious tribes such as Jews within German society was tenable in the longer term should not imply support for the monstrous Nazi 'final solution'. Had Nazism not triumphed in the 1930's, then other solutions could have been arrived at. These might have involved either the mutually agreed separation of the tribes into viable geographical regions or the assimilation of the Jewish tribe into the larger German tribe.

As for Australia, the plan to turn this country into "a representative sample of the cultures of the earth" as Mark O'Connor put it, is clearly insane, except in terms of selfish interests of that cynical minority in our midst, namely the "growth lobby" who have foisted this policy upon the rest of us through clever propaganda in which they have been able to depict themselves as being warm, welcoming, altruistic and compassionate.

It will probably take decades to fix up this mess, if it can be fixed at all.

Perhaps this discussion should move to the abovementioned forum in response to Tim Murray's article "Australia and Canada: what cost cultural diversity?" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=7896&page=0

Daggett

The article I mentioned does include the figure 300,00 but you need to read more critically. The article includes "190,300 in the permanent migration stream, 56,500 in the family stream and about 50,000 in the temporary skilled migration program - totalling more than 300,000."

But note (a) the inclusion of 50,000 TEMPORARY skilled workers who will be required to go home at the end of their contracts.

And (b) the article also fails to mention the permanent departures from Australia - around 70,000 each year. So stop the panic.

You are continuing to cite "the plan to turn this country into "a representative sample of the cultures of the earth" as Mark O'Connor put it.""

What plan? Just mindless parroting of inane propaganda doesn't make it true. It's the same with immigration figures - mindless repetition of incorrect data won't make them true. Do your own sums. There's nothing 'elaborate' in the statistics. But if you find it all a bit much I'll lend you my calculator.

Banjo

"Illegal means unauthorised or prohibited so i will continue to use the word." But asylum seekers do not break Australian or international law. Look it up.

"That is good enough for me to say that the tougher border control measures worked. Whether you agree on not is totally irrelivant."

So the facts don't matter - all that counts is whether you think so? So self-delusion is perpetuated.

viking13 – you can put as much spin on it as you like you can say that it is high German and the like you can make little quibbles but in the end it is a different language.

Yiddish is written from right to left and uses the Hebrew alphabet. Correct me if I am wrong but those to points alone prove that it is very different to German!

"Yiddish is written from right to left and uses the Hebrew alphabet. Correct me if I am wrong but those to points alone prove that it is very different to German!"

I did mention the Yiddish script at some time....but you claimed that Jews wouldn't learn the "native language of Europe" of which German is one, yet a Yiddish speaker would be able to converse with a German with perfect understandability, since they would be SPEAKING the same language.

Considering that Jews served in the German Army in WWI with distinction, and formed the backbone of the German medical system until 1930s, it's indeed strange that none of them could speak German!

It's really hard to get through to some people, even normally intelligent (part) Jews.

LOL Viking13. You seem to think that they called it Yiddish because it was the same as German. Come on now if it was the same why give it a different name?

What about the Jews in Poland, Hungary or Russia? Are you going to try and tell me Polish is also German? How about Russian? It’s the same as German as well right?