Leigh,
Looks like I owe you an apology as i did not pay enough attention to what you actually said. Migrants have contributed to our economy and society, but I could not say anymore than anyone else.

I agree that many migrants have benefitted along with us and good luck to them. Business skills and hard work generally does pay dividens.

Before and after 1950 migrants contributed in many ways, for example:- Skills needed to set up new industries. I recall that at that time we were starting new industries and "self sufficiency for Australia" was the catchwords and the objective. Skills and labour was required for the mammoth Snowy River Scheme. Tough conditions!
The most noticable contribution has been to the catering industry. Before 1950 the choice in a cafe was just about limited to steak and eggs or a mixed grill. Now we get such a wide variety of menus.
The wine industry is another that has vastly improved.

I cannot say if these events would have occured without migration, as there is no way of measuring that, just opinions.

It all changed to the worse with MC and the removal of industry protection in the 70s. The hair brained concept of globalism came into being. I do not recall problems with Lebs prior to Fraser allowing that large number of Leb muslims in. Until then the Lebs were mostly Christian with christian values.

I really believe that both Liberal and Labor have now seen the error of MC, but they are not saying too much now simply to appease the hardliners in their parties. Whoever wins next will aompletly abolish MC.

Now we need to work on reducing migration and refugees to a more realistic level, that we can sustain.

Each day we get a day closer to the total failure of American policy in the middle east.
That day will see uncontrolled immigration from there to all parts of the world.
Doubt it? wait and see.
I am not anti American just anti the whole Bush administration.
We now need to understand are we well served by caring more for some refugees than they will ever care for us? our culture? our rights in our own country?
Be honest more share my concerns than not, more soon will.

COUNTRY GAL... hey.. *pout*.. you don't want to encourage me ? :) grrr... I'll survive, but nothing wrong with a bit of a boost now and then.. need "something" to counter the irritating attacks of CJ and Pericles :)

BELLY
you have a VERY important point there mate.. If the US policy in Iraq flops and there is a worse bloodbath than now.. all those who cooperated with the US and its allies may well be looking for a new home. NOT HERE ! thanx.. no way .. we went there to help them gain democracy and independance from a tyrant, and to guarantee oil supply I presume.. but that does not mean we have to open our doors to those who we helped.. note.. we helped.. not they helped us... we gave it our best shot..and if it fails.. they have to pick up the ball and run with it.
They could solve their problem over night, but while we remain there they wont because of our pulling the 'human rights' strings... and holding them back from the only solution they all know will work.

The tribal nature of Iraq and the history of conflict between Shia, Sunni, Arab and Kurd will mean a heck of a brawl out of which ONE will emerge victorious (at a hell of a cost) and/or.. Iran will gain a new colony. But open and multi party multi racial democracy ? nah.. aint gonna happen.....ever.

ONE mob will be top dog and it will viciously BITE any young or smaller dog which tries to take that position.

CG,

I must say that your posts have never betrayed your Y generation status. You are obviously not typical of the younger generation, and I am very glad of it. I don't really classify all younger people as write offs. But, like everyone else I can only call it as I see it. Perhaps I was the same at a similar age. I must confess that I was on the left of centre until I was about 30, when I learned the error of my ways.

Banjo,

I think that you and I are closer than you think on these matters.

To an extent, I suppose you should consider cultural clashes. I can deal with DB to a certain extent, though I think he goes a little too far. Leigh goes there, and way beyond.

I still think the issue is pretty trivial compared to say, drugs on the streets, but hey. I suppose it's topical right now.

Though DB - you're getting part of the philosophy of Marxism wrong.

Marx's theory was based on a basic model of economics - people weren't people, they were essentially a number or commodity: labour.

In this numbers theory, capitalism is based on competition, so in an effort to undercut competitors, the wage of the working man would always be eroded, until such point as he was desperate enough to rebel, overthrow the ruling classes, and establish a new form of government run by the workers.

Now Marx's theory was wrong on two counts: one, government exists, and it regulates minimum wage conditions. (Though free marketeers continue to try and erode this).
Two: the lot of the average worker hasn't eroded - living standards have increased. A lot of this is due to growth, which is at odds with sustainability, and ultimately changing this system without running into Marx's conundrum I think is the greatest challenge facing humanity.

Anyhow, I say all this because you're indicating that Marx had a desire to overthrow the goverment. That's wrong. In his view, it was inevitable, and would happen regardless. He was content to wait.

It was when it was taken and used as an excuse to install communism without the requisite situation, which quite frankly doesn't exist, that it caused problems.

Hi TRTL yes.. I'm by no means an IMAM on the intricacy's of Marxist philosophy, but I know a dead horse when I see one.
The problem with an 'inevitability' schema is that it's not much of a hop to 'lets help it along'.

Many of the advances in working conditions you refer to were achieved by a 'marxist' approach of seeking to gain political advantage and power by promising economically unsustainable wage outcomes to workers using the language of class war, wealth redistribution, and worker rule.

I've not seen private company's trying to reduce wages (they still need a workforce) but to reduce costs and improve efficiencies. The tendency is more to 'clamp' wages to the same level. This is where the government should enforce a taking into consideration of inflation of course.

The problem of course is that the economic dynamic which enabled private corporations to bend in the direction of higher wages, was destroyed by those very outcomes. Now, we have to compete with China and Indonesia etc, but in many areas simply cannot, so we die inside as all hope fades and morphs into an angry despair.

That despair is what Marxism then seeks to capitalize on to create or forment the 'revolution' aspect of the historical dialectic.

The degree of "inevitability" verses "active promotion of" violent revolution is entirely academic and I believe moot, because Marxism being an atheistic closed material system lacks any moral basis for restraint when the possibility of gaining power by fair means or foul is imminent.

In order to formulate a specific 'anti marxist' immigration or resettlement policy, one would need to tie down the chapter and verse aspects of their position on revolution much tighter than I have here.

Thanx for the insights.