The pass rate for the Australian Citizenship Test has fallen from 80% to 65%.

80% under the Coalition, 65% under Albanese.

Fewer of the people being brought here understand Australian values. They have little or no connection.

To pass, applicants are required to have: a basic knowledge of English; an understanding of what it means to be an Australian citizen; knowledge of responsibilities and privileges; a commitment to Australian values.

Not a big ask.

And, of course, there is a small minority of immigrants passing the test, but reverting to type after getting the prize.

The blame lies squarely with the political class, elected and unelected. And, it has to be said: more so under the Albanese regime.

When immigration became a lucrative business instead of being a vital step to Nation building, it all went awry !
The most insidious Nation-destruction is dual citizenship.

100k successful tests in January. Is this how the Albo cult responds to public concerns about high immigration?

'an understanding of what it means to be an Australian citizen'
- I'm not sure I'd even be able pass this.

What does it mean exactly?
And what is the 'correct' answer?

And what is the 'correct' answer?
Armchair Critic,

I have an Australian Passport ! Not a second one for another Nation !

Well said, Armchair Critic!

«'an understanding of what it means to be an Australian citizen'»

Understanding is not required, only parroting.

«- I'm not sure I'd even be able pass this.»

Anybody with basic knowledge of the English language and an I.Q. between 80 and 120 should be able to pass that test.

«What does it mean exactly?»

Nothing.

«And what is the 'correct' answer?»

Check the 'correct' answers here, http://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/citizenship/test-and-interview/prepare-for-test/practice-test-new
then learn them by heart for the test and tell them what they like to hear.

Yuyutsu

Your cynicism adds nothing.

Even I, strongly opposed to immigration in most cases, wouldn't suggest, as you have, that migrants are going to just 'tell them what they want to hear'.

The point is: the quality of immigrants is slipping all the time. The 'skilled' immigration intake is very low; it's a sham.

Immigration is being use by the political class to boost GDP. Nothing more. There is no more infrastructure to cope with the massive
influxes, no extra housing, no extra health and education.

Immigrants now are just cannon fodder to ward off recession, as any competent economist will tell you.

It doesn't matter how dumb or useless immigrants are.

Dear Ttbn,

I thought the topic you introduced was the Australian citizenship test, rather than immigration - you must be aware that one doesn't need to become a citizen in order to immigrate.

As for the cynicism, it is not mine, it's of the people who came out with that test.

In real life, 99% of the people, when faced with an official answer they disagree with to an official question, would provide the official answer rather than the answer they believe to be correct.

The outliers are the imbeciles who fail to understand the questions and the overly intelligent who could contribute most to society, but are too proud to provide stupid answers.

You must be familiar already with this song: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VucczIg98Gw

Yuyutsu

Don't be obtuse; you are too clever for that. You can't apply for citizenship unless you immigrate.

Do you have proof that “99%” of people would tell a lie? Some, yes; but 99%? You have a lower opinion of people than I do. Some would add, ‘and that's really saying something’.

Let's concentrate on the topic that 35% of would-be citizens were too intellectually inept to pass the test, and not the sort of people capable of making a useful contribution to society, apart from propping up the GDP to make the government look better than it is.

Dear Ttbn,

«you are too clever for that. You can't apply for citizenship unless you immigrate.»

But you can immigrate without applying for citizenship, in which case you remain a permanent resident indefinitely (though your offspring when born in Australia would automatically become Australian citizens).

«Let's concentrate on the topic that 35% of would-be citizens were too intellectually inept to pass the test»

I find it hard to believe that the test (which I looked at) is such an intellectual challenge. The overwhelmingly biggest reason must therefore be the inadequate level of their English. A small minority may also fail the test because they cannot conscientiously mark answers they do not agree with.

Whether or not these 35% pass the test and become citizens, they would still consume the same infrastructure and still prop up the GDP to make the government look better.

"The pass rate for the Australian Citizenship Test has fallen from 80% to 65%."
- Ah, I see. So that means you're allowed to get 7 wrong out of those 20 questions or alternatively 13 correct out of 20 and you pass.
Some of the questions are a little difficult, but some of them the answer is obvious because the other multiple choice options are stupid.

I got 18 out of 20, but I should've gotten 19 as one I just didn't read or think about properly before I answered it, and there was no 'check answers' button at the bottom, meaning I did not go back and double check my answers before finishing as I would've normally done.

14. Which arm of government has the power to interpret and apply laws?
a. Legislative
b. Executive
c. Judicial

I thought the question was asking which branch of government makes laws not enforces them and I chose a/ legislative (wrong)

I could probably make the same argument above for the other one I got wrong;
- Just didn't read or think about it properly before I answered it.

15. Which of these is a role of the Governor-General?
a. The appointment of state premiers
b. Signing all Bills passed by the Australian Parliament into law
c. The appointment of the Head of State

I chose c/ (wrong) but upon reflection our head of state and state premiers are not appointed by anyone, they are voted in by the Australian people.

Dear Critic,

I got 19/20 correct.

The only question I missed were the colours of the Australian flag.
It's just this automatic response of mine: when I see a flag (or any other advertisement for that matter) I avert my eyes.
But then, had I come prepared and read that booklet in advance then surely I would have gotten even that one right.

Yuyutsu

The failures can live here until they die.

But, you are wrong about their offspring automatically being citizens if they are born here.

At least one of the parents of offspring must be an Australian citizen for the offspring to qualify. Anyone born here to non-citizens is also a non-citizen. You might be thinking of the U.S, where they are automatically citizens. In Australia, they are not.

As you say, the failures will continue to use up our resources, work and pay tax, on a permanent visa, without the benefits of citizenship. I think that their children can apply for citizenship after the age of 10; but I'm not sure about that.

In my daily walks, I see numbers of elderly people shuffling about, probably on a family reunion visas and required to be provided for by their families, not Australian taxpayers

Dear Ttbn,

"Where one or both parents are Australian citizens or a permanent residents, a child born in Australia automatically acquires Australian citizenship. As soon as the baby is born, the parents may apply for an Australian passport in respect of the child. If both parents are permanent residents, the child will become an Australian citizen before they do." - http://www.gotocourt.com.au/immigration/children-born-australia-citizens/

«In my daily walks, I see numbers of elderly people shuffling about, probably on a family reunion visas and required to be provided for by their families, not Australian taxpayers»

Yes, while I already voiced my view that visas should not be required to enter Australia, I agree that this should always be the case, that the families should provide, not the tax-payer, regardless of one's visa type.

learn them by heart for the test and tell them what they like to hear.

Yuyutsu,

I think it's all just about money. i mean, just look at the people residing here since money instead of cultural or ethnic background got immigration agents spring up on every street corner.

Sorry AC,

Just got your test results, you put Kebab at question 197 the answer is Meat Pie, automatic failure, you are being deported to GAZA! That's better than the bloke who answered Toyota and not Holden as his favourite car at question 563, he's in for a public flogging before hanging, first offence, we go easy on em'.

Which ethnic group would have the approval from the Aborigines to migrate to their lands ?
Which migrant do the Aborigines believe would compensate them better than the Europeans ?
I never got any answers to that question over the years.

Indyvidual

Bit off topic but interesting, because a minority of loud-mouthed aboriginal-identifiers have made it clear that they don't like us.

They, of course, don't have a clue what the people they claim to be connected to thought: all several hundred little tribes of them.

We do know that there was little serious resistance to the British arrival, and the aborigines were quick to cotton on to the easy way of getting food from the settlers instead of wandering out looking for it, and often enduring periods of little food of any sort.

You won't get a sensible answer from the descendants of aborigines today because, like the rest of us they don't have a clue.

But, they were a damn sight better off with the British Empire than they would have been with any of the other Empires.

Like Monty Python's Holy Grail..."What is the weight of an African Swallow?" Laden or unladen. Any response will see us cast into the abyss below. Welcome to the new 'normal' for allowing migrants into Australia, & criminals et al let loose onto the streets. The lessons of France, Norway & Sweden seemingly have no effect on our politicians and bleeding heart self interest groups. So we will inevitably reap what we sow and allow to germinate. The only salvation will be China proclaiming Gum Shaan as 'New South Guangdong' in a few short years. Whatever your chosen deity...God Help Us !

Buying a Visa doesn't make one an immigrant it merely facilitates emigration.

Dear Indyvidual,

Your last three posts as well as the responses they received, are completely off-topic, because they deal with immigration, rather than with citizenship.

Citizenship is about admission into a society.
Any society should be able to set its membership terms and conditions as its sees fit.

That may include requiring candidates to learn a particular language and to pass a certain test, any test, thus we were discussing the usefulness or otherwise of the particular Australian citizenship test.

An aboriginal tribe, on the other hand, could have required as their acceptance test that the candidate shuts their eyes, dream that they are a bird, jump off a cliff and remain alive - that's their prerogative.

Now immigration is a completely different matter:

Both aboriginals and white Australians may have preferences as to who else lives in this continent, that is fine but it doesn't grant them any privilege to forcibly screen out the others. They may legitimately try to incentivise only those they like to come to arrive, possibly financially, possibly by offering them membership in their society and denying such membership from the others, but ultimately it is up to individuals and families to determine where they live, not to the people who happen to live there presently.

The Australian political class and so-called elites prefer foreigners to Australians. They are riddled with self-hatred, and think that the rest of us should feel the same.

We have to show that we are not by withholding our votes from the uni-party (Coalition and Labor), the Greens and the Teals - all self-haters or hating us.

Their latest show of cowardliness is the reinstating of Palestinian visa that had been cancelled, because one person plus a couple of dogs set up barking about it.

completely off-topic, because they deal with immigration, rather than with citizenship.
Yuyutsu,
They're more intertwined than you'll ever comprehend !

Yuyutsu,
btw. which group has had the most positive impact in your opinion. I believe blue collar workers did.

The era of the factory worker and Aussie made goods Indy...
I wonder what impact it has on a nations men and soul when these things are lost.

Just one aspect, when we built own own cars and raced them.
When men argued over Fords and Holdens and spent many late nights working on them.
When we were proud of our countries unique characteristics.

Dear Indyvidual,

«btw. which group has had the most positive impact in your opinion.»

Well, you seem to be dragging me further and further away from the topic into areas I was never concerned with.

I do not support slave-trade where "we" bring "them" because they are useful to us.

Yes, I may incidentally be happy when blue collar workers arrive, but whether I am happy or sad about it is irrelevant. People come so that they and their families will be happy, not for me or for you: when the white people came to Australia, did it matter whether or not the aboriginals were happy about it, or whether or not it made a positive impact on them?

Would Banksy give unwanted immigrants colour coded armbands, to alert Troopers of LibertarianiZm?

http://youtu.be/Qkc921anMBw?si=MVztkFdERoaxMxXE

There is a fine line between true patriotism which embraces inclusion, and dogmatic nationalism, which is based on superiority, and therefore excludes all those considered inferior. Hopefully Australians see through those who promote dogmatic nationalism. The notion that you can apply a simple test to quantify adherence to the abstract notion of social values. The practice test for citizenship on line would be passed by anyone in the world with a bit of historical knowledge, and a basic understanding of what a liberal democracy is all about. Try the test, everyone should score 20/20.

did it matter whether or not the aboriginals were happy about it, or whether or not it made a positive impact on them?
Yuyutsu,
I have no doubt that many of the settlers would have tried until the realisation hit that this was not an achievable outcome in those days. Just as most if not all Aborigines would have no desire to go back to that (faux) Nirvana Academic historians are trying to portray in the pursuit of their hypocritical careers.

Dear Indyvidual,

«I have no doubt that many of the settlers would have tried until the realisation hit that this was not an achievable outcome in those days.»

I am at a loss to understand your statement:

WHAT would not be an achievable outcome?

My earlier statement was hypothetical anyway:

Whether or not the aboriginals were happy about it, whether or not it had a positive impact on them, the white people who settled in Australia did not ask for their permission to come.

In the same way, those who wish to come and live in Australia today, should not have to ask for permission either from present Australians.

Fair is fair!

Fair is fair!
Yuyutsu,
Knowing full well that you won't get it but I know quite a number of fair people who are quite stupid !

Hi Yuyutsu,

A past wrong, and given the context of the time it probably wasn't a wrong for the British to settle Australia. In no way does that justify having uncontrolled boarders today. Indy is a migrant, and he would have gone through a rigorous control process before entering Australia.

Indy, BTW I see its another 20 bucks in your pocket from today, thanks to us long suffering taxpayers! When will this old age largesse stop, and a SENIORS NATIONAL SERVICE be invoked!

Dear Paul,

«A past wrong, and given the context of the time it probably wasn't a wrong for the British to settle Australia.»

No, it was not wrong for the British to settle Australia, at least not as individuals - and by the same token it is not wrong for other individuals to settle Australia today.

I understand the need for borders in order to prevent the importation of crime, terrorism, infectious diseases and foreign regimes - these go under legitimate self-defence, but other than that nobody has the right to block off parts of God's land from others.

Hi Yuyutsu,

I understand what you are saying, good people should be free to move wherever and whenever they so choose. But there is the "selfish" aspect of those already occupying the space in question. The degradation of that amenable space by over population. I do recall a conversion we had sometime back where you stated the worlds population needed to be reduce by, was it 97%, correct me if I'm wrong.

If there was a sudden influx of say, 50 million into Australia, a small number by world standards, that would result in huge problems, which I don't need to spell out, how would you deal with that?

" ....nobody has the right to block off parts of God's land from others", claims Yuyutsu,

But they do. Sovereign governments have the right to decide who enters their countries and by what means they do it.

Dear Ttbn,

«Sovereign governments have the right to decide who enters their countries»

There is no such moral right - Only if "might is right".

---

Dear Paul,

Yes, I believe that world population needs to be reduced to the range of 100M-200M people.

Just because people enter the land I am on, does not mean that I have to accept them into my society as well.

I may want to accept them, but I don't have to, or perhaps I could accept them only to some degree and not on equal terms. I do not, for example, have to grant them assistance, security and protections or I may grant them only a limited recourse to them.

In practice, and depending on the severity of the situation, I would probably use economic levers to discourage mass migration. I could for example:

* not give uninvited migrants any welfare.
* not recognise their employment by Australian businesses as a legitimate tax-deductible expense.
* not register their real-estate purchases in the land registry.
* not grant them Australian driver licenses - or perhaps sell them licenses at 10 times the price Australian citizens pay.
* not make the Australian court system available to them in case they have been wronged by Australian citizens and wish to sue them.

I could go on, but I think you can get the gist.

Yuyutsu

Stop posting crap, man. We are talking about the rule of law and the right and obligation of countries to protect their borders and culture. Not your personal take on morality.

Dear Ttbn,

«Not your personal take on morality.»
Regarding morality, there are no three ways about it:
either you believe that violence is wrong, or you believe that "might is right".

If you believe the latter, then you may just as well justify Hamas' attack and atrocities on October 7th, just because they were able to do what they did; or the Houthis shooting and drowning merchant ships to protect their culture because they can.

Is this the culture you are so eager to protect?

«We are talking about the rule of law»

A rule of law is only legitimate over those who freely accepted that law to begin with.

- unless of course "might is right".

«and the right and obligation of countries to protect their borders and culture.»

Who gave "countries" such a right? Their might?
Who obliged them to protect? Their desires?

Desire not a right makes.

- well again, not unless "might is right".

By "country", I take it you mean a group of people, rather than the actual land that supports them.

The theory is that some "social contract" is in place, whereby the actual people of the land joined together because they sought mutual protection.

That never happened in reality in modern times - in reality the people as a whole never joined and agreed on anything, but lets assume for a moment that they did.

According to that theory, individuals delegate the group to exercise their legitimate power to self defend, that because a group can protect more effectively than a loose bunch of individuals.

Fair enough, but such a group only receives its powers from the people that comprise it, and therefore its powers cannot exceed the total aggregate of powers originally belonging to the people who bestowed them on the group. In other words, no extra powers or "rights" can appear out of thin air only because some people decided to get together.

Unless of course "might is right", people's power to defend themselves and their properties is restricted and finite, thus the aggregate sum of these powers is also finite.

unless of course "might is right".
Yuyutsu,
That is the parasitic Woke definition of Democracy being dictated to by minority groups.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yuyutsu

My understanding is that the word Yuyutsu is Hindu- maybe the Yuyutsu on OLO believe's in replacing Anglo-European principles with Hindu principles.

Perhaps because India is overpopulated they no longer identify with the land but with the culture separated from the land. Maybe Hindu's and other cultural groupings have their own governments or elder councils.

Perhaps Northern Regions where European culture developed was more sparsely populated and environmentally hostile and this led to a different cultural view and it's attachment to the land. When you can point to a road and say my great-grandfather built it, grandfather built the church and school, father built the house- the extended family live in it- the community has a much deeper impression on personal identity.

When there is constant warfare between tribes- survive by running- identity with the land is lost.

I believe land identity important- I don't care if people think I'm a racist anti-Hindu micro-aggressivist for believing it. I feel sad for Hindu's that may have lost their identity with the land.

I don't believe in replacing Anglo principles with Hindu principles.
I believe that Hindu principles might "work" for Hindu's in India- and Anglo principles "work" for Australian Anglo's.

Dalai Lama "Europe is for the European's".

Woke/ Communist- Critical Race Theorists say races are incompatible and relativist- the solution to relativism is to burn culture down- nihilism- I disagree with the solution.

Communist's apparently similar to Yuyutsu don't seem to believe in individual property rights and everything should be owned by the state or culture (and the Communist state should become global). Variations on a theme. I like the idea that culture should be able to control it's own destiny. Hindu nationalism also seems to support the view of self determination (similar to the UN).

Society is a hierarchy- property ownership is embodied at each level sometimes in different ways. Individuals, streets, towns, cities, states, nations, regions, planets- all have property rights at scale- property means personal property or real estate.

God's argue property rights too. Those that can't agree must be separated to avoid war- some want war.

In ancient times "people and weapons were stockpiled in preparation for war". The industrial revolution replaced labour with machines- but some nations still stockpile people for war.

Considering population and war: a critical and neglected aspect of conflict studies
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2781832/

Population and Conflict: Exploring the Links
The State of the Field: Demography and War
http://www.wilsoncenter.org/sites/default/files/media/documents/publication/Toft.pdf

Dear Canem Malum,

You presented a very interesting hypothesis - are you aware of the implications?

If non-violence is only a Hindu-specific cultural trend and not a universal principle, if the true representative of Western Anglo-European culture is Caligula rather than Jesus Christ, if the best example of Christian life is the Spanish Inquisition rather than St. Francis of Assisi, if the descriptions of Charles Dickens represent the height and ideal of British civilisation, if claiming foreign lands as one's own because one has a stronger navy, is a virtue deserving of statues, if an environmentally hostile land justifies a culture of hostility towards other human-beings, if a deepening of personal identity is considered an advantage rather than a handicap, if attachment to material things is looked at as an advantage rather than as a shackle as taught by Diogenes, who was a Greek, not a Hindu - then being born Anglo-European is a curse, a pitiable epitome of misery and low life.

But in reality, Europe too had great men and women who taught compassion and that might is not right - and many who follow them.
In reality, India too is full of selfish people, fanatic nationalists and violent dispossession of Muslims by misguided Hindus who think that might is right.
In reality, human nature and the principles surrounding it are not fundamentally different between India and Europe.
Both Europe and India have arrogant fools who consider themselves to be lords of their destiny.

I mentioned nothing against owning the rightful fruits of one's labour, like roads, schools and churches. Ultimately there comes a time in life when one is called to renounce them and be free, but till then they should enjoy.

But while one may enjoy the improvements achieved and earned by their handcraft, the land itself that carries all life, was not created by man, who therefore has no right to claim to be its owner.

I therefore bow down in salutation to Mother Prithvi, the earth goddess: nobody owns their mother, nobody has a right to deprive their brothers and sisters of her love!

The "immigrants" of late aren't really potential future Australians as most of them retain their old citizenship once Australian citizenship has been granted. So, instantly you have an only 50 % allegiance factor.
Why have an Immigration Department at immense cost when a few ignorant ivory tower Academics with no foresight whatsoever can overrule it ?

Dear Indyvidual,

«Why have an Immigration Department at immense cost when...»

I fully agree, great savings can be made!