" ... if migrants wish to migrate to Australia, they should go via the appropriate channels, which these are not."

Why should they if the 'appropriate channels' either don't exist in some countries, or they know that they would wait years sitting around a refugee camp doing nothing?

What would you do?

Jay

Please provide evidence for the source of the figures you give for average IQ from those countries. Who did the tests, when, what was the sample size etc. Then, evidence of the IQ of the migrants from those countries to Australia, at the time of their arrival. Then evidence of the IQ of descendants of migrants from those countries. Then an analysis of how reliable and comparable any of these statistics are. Then an assessment of the effects of biases in the tests, access to education, effects of racism etc. at the different places and stages. Then, and only then, will I consider this argument.

Keeping in mind that the Afghanis must have some degree of intelligence since they have succesfully driven off or outlasted all invaders including those from the apparently higher IQ western countries, England, Russia and now the US and Australia.

Also keeping in mind that the Indians and Pakistanis are some of the best mathematicians in the world; migrants who have had poor educational access (often because of war etc.) may not demonstrate this, but just give them the opportunity ...

"For White idealists evolution doesn't stop at the neck, it's been acting upon people's brains as well." Of course it has - and everybody's smart - all humans had to be to survive. I'd recommend your average white idealist to read some of Steven Jay Gould's works; he comprehensively demolishes the view that white idealists are smarter than other races.

@Cossomby,

You really have your wires crossed Cossomby!

You ask what if [channels for economic migration don't exist] "in some countries" what do they do (?)

Then you go go straight on to yabbering about <<they know that they would wait years sitting around a refugee camp doing nothing?>>!

They are EITHER refugees OR they are economic migrants!

Economic migrants cannot apply under the refugee convention

And tell me, what nationalities are excluded from our other avenues of migration?

Actually you spoiled my day belatedly finding the answer to your query: <<What's wrong with economic migrants? [sneaking in through our refugee intake]>>

But I am still going to post my response.

What's wrong with economic migrants? [sneaking in through our refugee intake]>>?

What's wrong with me driving my Lamborghini Gallardo (pictured here with me at the drivers seat: http://tinyurl.com/laf6the)
driving down the nearest bicycle track --after-all they are both thoroughfares?

[No snide remarks please Poirot!]

Gentlemen,

There are more votes in the "hard-edged" approach
towards asylum seekers. Look at Foreign
Minister's Bob Carr's appearance on Lateline
on the same evening that Kevin Rudd won the Prime
Ministership from Julia Gillard. Carr's statements
indicated that the Rudd government had decided refugees
are fair game and no doubt the new Immigration Minister
Tony Burke will be required to follow this path set out
so definitely by Carr.

Yet Bob Carr's statements are contradicted by Immigration
Department figures which show at least 90 per cent of
people who come here seeking asylum from persecution are
judged to have legitimate claims. It appears that economic
refugees form a smaller percentage than Mr Carr would
have us believe. But pollies do tend to go where the votes
lie - as we've seen demonstrated thus far in our
recent political culture. Slogans that sound good beats
policies every time as do polls in the mediascape.

@Lexi,

<<Bob Carr's statements are contradicted by Immigration Department figures which show at least 90 per cent of people who come here [inaccurate/misleading description removed] from [inaccurate/misleading description removed]are [rubber stamped( more accurate term inserted)] to have legitimate claims.

It all depends on how low you set the bar. I am sure that if a Lexi administration was in office 110% would be found legitimate!

SPQR,

The following links may help:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/overwhelming-majority-of-boat-arrivals-deemed-to-be-refugees-20130519-2juty.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jun/28/rudd-government-asylum-seeker-policy