Despite the talk of immigrants doing bum wiping that locals supposedly don't want to do, the vacancies in health care and social assistance are 90% higher than before Covid.

It's lies, lies, and more lies on immigration from Labor.

The Japanese, who don't do immigration, but have some of the longest lives in the world, would be amazed to know that Australians can't wipe their own arses, and need “skilled” immigration to do it for them. A significant chunk of immigrants are a net drain on Australian taxpayers.

Many of these immigrants are living here indefinitely on “temporary” visas.

As for ‘skills’, less than half the immigrants were still working in the occupation that got them entry, one year later, according to the Grattan Institute.

“The greatest mystery is why this economically damaging system built on the myth of skills has carried on for so long”.

In real life, Paul 1405 would be had up for stalking. His obsession/fascination with certain other postsers is very creepy. Having an opinion is healthy: obsession, slobbering and bitching over the opinion of others that you don't like is just plain sick.

The Grattan Institute had this to say in their report on points testing within the 'skilled' Migration Program. Despite the derogatory remarks from the resident racists; "immigrants doing bum wiping" Most likely at that stage and needs it, claims he's an octogenarian.

"Migrants contribute greatly to Australia’s prosperity. Migration has
shaped Australia’s diverse, highly-educated and cohesive society.
Skilled migrants in particular lift the productivity of local workers, raising
Australians’ incomes. And each permanent skilled visa-holder boosts
Australian government budgets by $250,000 over their lifetimes, or
about $34 billion for each annual intake, as they pay more in taxes than
they receive in public services and benefits over their lifetimes."

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1662446304985740

A great example of the wrong kind of migrant

Countries are not fundamentally transformed by people without power. They are transformed by the people who possess it.

The powerful are unelected bureaucrats, not politicians who come and go. The bureaucrats are always there.

Anyone who reads ‘Origins of Multiculturalism” by Mark Lopez will know what I mean.

There are also universities, corporations, professional associations and media.

All of these people and things remain free from public voter control.

The only role governments play is not pulling these people and organisations into line, and failing to listen to people.

As Damien Costas (‘I want my country back! Who took it ….?’) writes, “ It's not who lives here. It's who governs here”. And, “ …. countries are not lost at the border. They are lost inside the institutions that gradually forget who they were created to serve”

I don't think it's so much that the "institutions that gradually forget who they were created to serve" but more that the institutions hiring and surviving processes are successively modified so that people having political views outside of Woke Marxism are weeded out of the institutions in spite of the views of the community. I find that the courts lead more than follow the views of the community in the name of "good principles". There are no good principles, principles aren't objective, they serve ideology, and when ideology disconnects with the community it means a loss of mandate and tyranny.

From AI-

The tension.. foundational debate in political philosophy and sociology: institutions drift over time, or whether they are systematically captured by ideology through hiring, promotion, and institutional gatekeeping.When institutions—particularly the judiciary—prioritise abstract philosophical principles over the immediate, democratic will of the community, it often sparks intense debates about institutional legitimacy, separation of powers, and risk of ideological tyranny.Institutional Selection vs. Institutional Drift- Observation distinguishes between two theories of institutional change:Institutional Drift: organizations gradually lose their original focus because society changes around them, or because they lack clear, updated guidance.Institutional Capture: The mechanism you highlighted, where an organization's internal processes (hiring, vetting, and professional advancement) are altered. This creates an ideological echo chamber, systematically filtering out dissenting viewpoints regardless of public sentiment.The Role of the Courts: Leading vs. Following. Relationship between the judiciary and public opinion is a central dilemma in constitutional law:The Counter-Majoritarian Difficulty: Courts are intentionally designed to be insulated from short-term public opinion to protect minority rights and uphold the rule of law. However, when courts consistently hand down rulings that clash with deep-seated community values, it can lead to a "crisis of mandate," eroding public trust in the legal system.The Nature of Legal Principles: Legal realists and critical legal theorists echo your point that legal principles are rarely completely neutral or objective. Instead, they argue that laws and principles are frequently interpreted through the lens of dominant cultural and political ideologies, serving to legitimise the power of whoever holds institutional control.