That makes more sense, KarlX.

>>And I might swallow that alibi were it not for the fact that you recently came out of the closet to express your preference for immigrants over locals<<

We can now agree that your assessment of my position was not based on the "evidence" that as you originally presented, and you are instead using random material - incidentally describing it as a "preference", which is a false conclusion - from an unrelated thread.

Fair enough.

But I don't necessarily agree that my motivation for asking the question actually disqualifies the question itself. In fact, it would appear that my assumed motivation is being used as an excuse for not answering, wouldn't you think?

If we applied your logic in Parliament, the Prime Minister would be able to deflect any of the opposition's questions, with the statement "well, I know you're going to disagree with me, so I'm not going to tell you why I said that, so nerny nerny ner ner."

Actually, that might be a step up from the normal exchanges. But you still get my point.

Pericles,

Let's get real - your main objection here is not my use (or misuse) of quotes but the fact that I have raised some critical questions about immigration-induced diversity that you clearly do not feel comfortable with. Rather than address the questions raised in my initial post, it seems you would prefer to snidely dismiss me as an "opponent of immigration" - classic immigration enthusiast code for anyone who, well, isn’t - and misrepresent my entire post as "a thread designed to show how horrible immigration is, and how it is destroying our society." To use your own words: you misrepresent the nature of my enquiring mind.

You are correct about one thing: the article I quoted is not available online. Rather, it appeared in a dead-tree publication that is no longer in print. However, luckily for you, Dr. Salter has published a number of other works that you can find online.

If you genuinely doubt that Dr. Salter was quoted in context, accurately, and in line with the general thrust of his published works, then I suggest you read Dr. Salter's article:

"The Misguided Advocates of Open Borders", Quadrant Magazine - http://www.quadrant.org.au/magazine/issue/2010/6/the-misguided-advocates-of-open-borders

Also be sure to read his much longer treatise on ethnic genetics interests:

"Estimating Ethnic Genetic Interests: Is It Adaptive to Resist Replacement Migration?", Population & Environment - http://lesacreduprintemps19.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/saltermigration1.pdf

I find it interesting that you were able to find Salter's website and wikipedia entry (and even post an irrelevant critique) but you couldn't find the time to read any of his readily available online published works. Could it be because your more interested in "playing the man, not the ball?"

KarlX wrote: "And I might swallow that alibi were it not for the fact that you recently came out of the closet to express your preference for immigrants over locals."

Pericles's derogatory comments about local "laid-back loafers" are revealing but hardly surprising: many immigration enthusiasts harbour a deep-seated animus towards native-born Australians, specifically those of Anglo-Celtic descent.

Of course, we could point out that it was the ancestors of those very "laid-back loafing" locals who built this country - and all of its infrastructure and industries - with the expectation that they would be able to pass it on to their offspring, rather than see it confiscated for the benefit of foreign peoples.

The main point, though, is that, despite all their inane rhetoric about promoting "tolerance", a significant number of immigration enthusiasts are, in fact, motivated by a deep intolerance. I would argue that the onus is on them to demonstrate that their support for mass immigration is not driven by a desire to undermine the position or interests of long-standing Australians.

Correction: "I find it interesting that you were able to find Salter's website and wikipedia entry (and even post an irrelevant critique) but you couldn't find the time to read any of his readily available online published works. Could it be because you're more interested in "playing the man, not the ball?"

rehctub wrote: "I will guarantee the number of crimes committed by immigrants have sky rocketed. That should answer your question."

The real question is whether or not the foreign-born population commits a disproportionately higher amount of crime. As far as I can tell, no government department collects such data, but I did come across this interesting OLO article on ethnicity and crime:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=991

The glaring lack of statistics on ethnic and immigrant crime is telling. In his book "The Conspiracies of Multiculturalism", Greg Clancy argues that governments have consistently turned a blind-eye to ethnic crime in order to prevent the stigmatisation of certain ethnic minority groups. This has mean that ethnic crime has been allowed to flourish under the protection of the multicultural industry.

The following report may be of some interest:

http://www.crimecommission.gov.au/publications/organised-crime-australia/organised-crime-australia-2011-report

Click onto the Introduction and other features for an
overview. Its quite interesting - shows how broad and
global the range is.