i just watched some foreign News on SBS & the subject of the present federal Governments skilled migration policy came up. I am totally in favour of controlled/selected migration. Ok,ok, stop screaming discrimination just yet ! What I would suggest is an across-the-board skill level intake. I mean society is not just a bunch of highly skilled, it's a mish-mash of manual, academic & artistic skills. So, if we want to succeed as a society than we need to give people the opportunity to form a society. Many want to bring wives or husbands & yet this the most basic building block of any society is being made utterly difficult. Many Australian men are trying to bring wives from other countries but they have near unsurmountable hurdles to overcome. This kind of pressure is not good for any society. For some ignorant academic bureaucrat to state that the focus should be on skilled people coming to australia it is just that, academic & ignorant. We already have a severe shortage of manual labour & yet the authorities are trying to make that pool even smaller. Why is that with so many educated people already among us that we have greater problems than before the education revolution. Academic skill does not bake bread, milk cows, repair cars, indeed does nothing towards everyday requirements. Yes we do need education, as a matter of fact we need it desperately but without practical ability we'll all go down the same path to nowhere.

Individual,

Any person getting a skilled migration visa (PR) automatically gets it for his family too.

If he is not married and subsequently marries some one externally, the partner can come in on a spousal visa.

For example, a young squash collegue of mine is here on a spousal visa from Zimbabwe, whiist his future wife is a naturalised citizen borne in Serbia. I don't recall any issues.

With regards the push for skilled migration, the issue has a lot to do with the aging population. With 25% set to be over 65 by 2030, the burden on taxpayers will be much higher.

Presently the break even point where tax paid = welfare benefits is at about $55 000 p.a. Persons earning higher than this contribute to the coffers whilst those earning less don't.

Skilled migrants (generally in their 20s and 30s) coming into jobs such as accountants, doctors, engineers etc not only contribute to the economy, but provide cash for welfare. Unskilled migrants are lowly paid and frequently unemployed, and are a net consumer of welfare.

Young skilled migrants coming in today will be feeding our pensioners in 2030

Shadow Minister,

High IQ migrants won't only be paying pensions, but they'll be running the country. The Anglo-Aussies get drunk, go clubbing and play video games - our skilled immigrants have big families, study, get educated and become wealthy and powerful.

So Shadow Minister, why do you leave this fact out when you say how good skilled migration is for us. Maybe you should ask these pensioners if they want to be "fed" by foreigners because, for the last 50 years, the government failed to make it possible for Australian's (by kowtowing to feminists and secularists) to have lots of kids - and thus avoid the demographic crisis and keep the country more united.

As far as immigration policies are concerned -
these require tough choices and constant policing.
Many people would come here if they had the chance -
it's up to the government to decide whom we accept -
and who we can sustain.

The skilled immigration policy
seems like a step in the right direction - it closes
the back door to overseas students gaining residency.
Many have been studying things like cooking, hospitality,
and other industries as a means of staying in the country
and then once completing their course - rorting the system
and applying for permanent residency.

With the skilled immigration policy that is now being proposed
students will be forced to return to their own countries -
and re-apply for immigration to Australia - and they will be
accepted or rejected - according to what Australia needs.

We also need to ensure that young Australians get the
training to fill the skilled jobs of the future.

Foxy,

For once I agree with you.

Now how much more does it apply to the illegal immigrants?

Dear Shadow Minister,

I think that the system that's currently
in place from my understanding - is
coping. What other choice does the
government have. Put them in boats, drag
them out to the ocean and sink them?
I don't think so.

With the volume of boat people and
involved countries en route such as
Indonesia - every logical effort is being made
to resolve the problem. Some form of "migration
centre," to assess their claims is necessary
be it on an island or elsewhere - and then
the "refugee" status of each individual can
be assessed - whether genuine or false.

We think Australia has a problem - the same
problem exists for Indonesia, Timor, Malaysia,
India, Bangladesh, Burma, Thailand, et cetera -
and this is only in our region.

Now how much more does it apply to the illegal immigrants .
drag them out to the ocean and sink them?I don't think so.

Shadow Minister & Foxy,
Your comments just gave me the idea of an international illegal migrants/refugee kind of court. If all people & all countries had to accept an international board's decision then no-one could either blame a country of discrimination nor could a country be blamed. We could have offices of international refugee distribution in every country, similar to embassies. It could possibly even leave the radical accusers of discrimination stumped. United nations land could be used for temporary housing of refugees. This might even give the UN some sense of usefulness.

Dear Individual,

I believe that the UN is the current
adminstrator that determines the placement
of refugees based on the numbers each individual
country is willing to accept.

Unfortunately there are no specific UN centres
and individual countries that end up with these
asylum seekers make some effort to provide
temporary facilities until the UN determines the
asylum seekers future.

That is my understanding based on our government's
explanations.

Perhaps TRUTHNOW78 may explain to us all what secularists have to do with skilled migration and "the number of kids". as in his/her comment

Far more important to you, or so it seems, is where the skilled migrants have come from with your emphasis on family size together with the stated 'lazy' characteristics of Australians. We need a more selective policy as to the suitability of migrants, not just for skills, but more importantly, for their ability to integrate into our society avoiding the ghetto mentality we can see in this country and even more noticeable, all over the world, now causing serious problems everywhere. There is the big error.
The Australian characteristics you detailed, if correct, will change when they realise they are losing all those wonderful ‘laid back’ activities they enjoy so much.
We have been fortunate over the past 50 years in selecting Europeans by the thousands. What a dismal country without the influence of Italians, British, Greeks and others where successful assimilation has been perfect.

The problem will occur in Australia if we continue to base our migration policies on skills alone rather than including acceptability to our way of life as a criteria of equal importance. Education has the ability to overcome shortages in skill levels in the short term if addressed seriously, but filling this country with people who will never assimilate because of views alien to our culture will compound our problems with every passing year.
There are many examples of this mistake in almost all countries in the world.
Any analysis of the migration problems of the world in 2010 would show quite clearly that all governments trying to overcome such problems would gladly turn back the clock to have been much more discriminating in their choice of skilled or non-skilled migrants rather than, through short term needs and convenience, sow the seeds for future problems that do not have a solution.
If we go down this track, that is selecting migrants for skills only, Australia will pay the price.
Fortunately, I will not be around to see it.

Foxy,

Christmas Island has gone from nearly empty to more than double design capacity in 6 months, with about 30 times the illegal boat arrivals under the pacific solution, and more than can be processed by existing personnel.

The term coping is wildly optimistic.

The only role of the UN is to comment on the refugee status. Given that their default position is to grant refugee status, and that most have no papers, (see how few get rejected) they mostly function as a rubber stamp.

So now it is quicker and cheaper to pay $15 000 for a place on a boat and wait for the bleeding hearts to relocate and house you, than trying to get in as a skilled migrant, and paying upto $50 000 for an education.

The overseas student study and visa scheme was a rort from the start.
It would be interesting to know how many just stuck a pin in the list
of courses.
I just read that they have had the identical problem in the UK and
they are cancelling many visas.

I just wonder how many millions do people think we can absorb ?
If the government decides 35 million is a good number, you can bet
that it will soar to 50 to 60 million.
We would have 100 ro 200 million arrive if we just did nothing.
It is time to crack down and say times up and lower the drawbridge.

I'm probably naive - but I thought that Australia
was under a legal obligation to take in a certain
agreed number of asylum seekers. These people have
to be assessed based on legitimate (or not) claims.
Economic refugees should have to apply through the normal
channels. Otherwise they shouldn't qualify for
acceptance.

Unfortunately, Australia is the closest and most
desirable and easiest to reach destination.
So, this problem is not going to go away -
and will be an ongoing issue - for generations to
come. There are those that want to escape persecution,
and there are those that want a better life.

The government has decided it's going to be
selective in the type of skilled migrants the
country needs. There's no point to bring in
workers in areas of specific speciality where there
is no work for them. They end up on welfare.
The government should take a strong stance and send
back to their countries of origin - at the claimant's
expense - all those that do not qualify for refugee
status - that would send a message hopefully to others
not to risk pursuing Australia as their ideal
destination.

Foxy,

Good post.

I suggest we bring back the White Australia Policy.

Foxy

Australia has no binding obligation to accept any quota of refugees. It has a voluntary quota of 13000 that it brings in from war areas, but its only obligation under the UN charter on refugees is to give temporary rights of residence to those fleeing from persecution that land on their soil.

It is perfectly legal to return them once the situation from which they are fleeing is resolved, and economic refugees fleeing from poverty have no rights of refuge.

Australia has no obligation to accept any status of "refugee" allocated by the UN, and when the refugee cannot prove origin (ie when he has destroyed his papers but has $15000 for the boat) then the government can detain the illegal immigrant indefinitely, if they deem him to be an economic refugee.

Without the benefit of a detailed examination, I tend to lean towards canning migration altogether, except when it turns on existing citizen rights AND a few legitimate "Asylum Seekers"

AND

thereafter invest in skilling up our own indigenous workforce in a strive towards full employment.

..

I suspect the likes of shadow are involved with buying marginal businesses, enhancing them and then selling them off to often corrupt international individuals in turn for Australian Residency,

(though I do not suggest to know that they are aware of this)

at which point they entrench themselves, and set up buying 3rd world product for a 3rd world price and selling it at a 1st world price to Ozzies too dumb to know any better.

Our stores are so full of cheap, over priced crap from red china and other places.

An example in my house at the moment is my aromatherapy burner. I can use one cotton wool ball which will last more than a week, burning all day long, every day. I'd be lucky to get an hour out of a standard red chinese special tea light candle - and that's the way they design them to be.

I suggest we bring back the White Australia Policy.
beaumonde,
Perhaps a western policy might be a more apt term in this day & age. There are many non-whites who are very western & it's those who should get priority for the simple reason that, although less functional by now, westerners are still the most sensible so far as mentality goes. That is also the reason so many flock to these shores as non-western societies simply do not accept foreigners & even less allow foreigners to settle in their lands. The only problem is to come up with a concise filtering system for stayers. If you want to live a non-western life style then you get filtered out. Anything more simple than that (apart from a leftie of course) ? Why on earth do we allow people to infiltrate when they openly declare their objection to our life style ? This (still) great nation did not get built by praying, singing & dancing. It got built by manual work & people putting money away for later & not for others to show up just in time for dinner & then leave the dishes for others.