Australia has always been reinventing itself. In 1988 an historian (sorry I can't remember source)divided the first 200 years up as follows:
1788-1838: Indigenous people the vast majority; a small immigrant group of dubious foreigners (most of whom would not pass immigration today on account of criminal records, inability to speak local language, low chance of assimilation).
1838-1888: Massive foreign immigration, swamping the previous occupants.
1888-1938: Relatively (compared to before and after)stable population of immigrants and their children - 'Australians'.
1938-1988: Massive immigration, now from more sources, but mainly same background as previous immigrants.

The last 20 years had been a continuation of the fourth quarter, still with most immigrants from traditional sources (UK, NZ)but with a new variety of other sources added.

So, nothing new. This IS Australia.

(Disclaimer: first family immigrant: 1793, last family immigrant (ex NZ) 1927, first non-UK immigrant 1853 Italy)

Pericles>> You also makes the somewhat glib assertion that migrants consider that "the economy should support them". Presumably, you mean that they are a drain on public funds.<<

Glib indeed, P what I mean by economy is the domestic economy, it gives them the employment, I have not whinged about benefits other than that is what partially or fully supports them. The way I see all benefits is that they are like a cash injection into our economy every two weeks and without it we would really be stuffed, all the service jobs would go, but to pay benefit we need more workers than recipients.

Pericles>> What about the ones that work? Or do you see them as "taking bread from the mouths of the Aussie battlers?"<<

P you could script Hitler’s twisted rhetoric with your ability to spin, get a grip.

PS I meant to add to last:

In spite of being descended from 1790s Sydney convicts, I also fall into the statistical category: "Some 45 per cent of all Australians were born overseas or have at least one parent who was born overseas." My father was born in NZ where his family had been since the 1840s. Amusingly, he never needed to be naturalised as an Australian, and got his first passport ever in the 1980s .... so he could visit New Zealand. He'd been to New Guinea in the army in WW2, but apparently you didn't need a passport (Australian or NZ) for that!

So this fearful statistic is pretty meaningless in terms of 'Australianess'.

If this was supposed to explain anything, sonofgloin, it most assuredly didn't.

>>Glib indeed, P what I mean by economy is the domestic economy, it gives them the employment, I have not whinged about benefits other than that is what partially or fully supports them. The way I see all benefits is that they are like a cash injection into our economy every two weeks and without it we would really be stuffed, all the service jobs would go, but to pay benefit we need more workers than recipients.<<

It would appear that you accept that employed migrants add to the economy, rather than subtract from it. In my language, that means that they "support" the economy, rather than the economy supporting them.

So how do you figure "benefits other than that is what partially or fully supports them"? They are either working, or on benefits, surely?

And frankly, the waffle about benefits being essential to all the service jobs makes no sense either.

I'm still trying to work out exactly where you see a problem. Is it the language? I thought we'd covered that off.

Is it jobs?

>>I grew up in an Australia where you could leave a job today and work tomorrow if you wanted<<

Ah, it's just nostalgia we're talking about, is it.

Hint: times have changed.

Amazing though it may seem to you, things have changed less here in Australia than in many other countries. We still have low unemployment, which has been a problem for Europe for decades, and is presently causing angst in the US. We still have a solvent country, which is a major worry in Greece and Ireland.

If only the weather would improve.

Oh, about that...

Sonofgloin,

Are you saying that migrants are coming in order to take part in 'social engineering'? Do you think migrants even come to be part of the Australian society or the Australian economy or the Australian welfare?

Other than some New-Zealand immigrants, wrong on all accounts.

Refugees are a "separate channel" only in the eyes of Australian beaurocrats, not the refugees themselves. Most immigrants see themselves as refugees, even as they arrive on other kinds of visas (myself included, I arrived on a skilled-visa). People come here to flee oppression, wars, conscription, unacceptable laws, harsh weather, I even know someone who fled their country because traumatized by earthquakes. Many who would never be recognized as refugees by the Australian government, would prefer to live in a kennel than in their country of origin.

Most immigrants come to live freely in this continent, not in its society. Most would actually prefer to arrive at a terra-nulla, if that was at all possible, and see the need to integrate with Australian society as a necessary evil (in fact, earlier immigrants did not excel in that aspect either).

As for employment, I neither rely on Australia for a job nor for welfare, I bring my income from overseas, and pay my taxes here. Is that good enough?

Hasbeen:

I recently heard of an infuriated theatre attendant who became irritable by a migrant who was unsure where to line up. "Why don't you learn how we do things here?" she shouted in exasperation at the bewildered migrant. Such absence of courtesy and understanding is inexusable and should prick the conscience of all of us. Incidents such as this one can provoke defiance, and even a desire to retaliate. Our aim should always be to behave with respect towards others, and to encourage this in all people. That's not being arrogant, compassionate would be a more appropriate word.

Piper:

I'm pleased that you haven't been exposed to any intolerance.
It's not pleasant.