Paul,

<< your dispatch from the "Auburn Front" is dated 2012...>>

Soooooooooo?

The Cronulla "riot" happened in 2005 --yet your side kick Foxy cites it in at least three posts each week!

SPQR,

the Plebeian...

1. One of the common people of ancient Rome. (I don't think so)
2. A member of the lower classes. (possibly)
3. A vulgar or coarse person. (most definitely)

Okay your a Pleb, if you insist.

Ok, so we've all got something to say, but at least we should address the topic legitimately and read each others' posts honestly - without 'constructing' interpretations which are demonstrably off-target and self-serving.

Main culprit - Paul, who persists in pushing his Green and anti-Coalition barrow all the way down our throats until we are heartily sick of it - and getting obnoxiously insulting whenever anyone deigns to contradict his stereotypical bias.
Pleb or self-confessed 'engineer'? Who cares, but the high-horse has a distinct 'lean'.
And, for info, one 'example' does not justify a broad-brush 'conclusion' of evidentiary 'proof'.
(And, I was not accusing anyone of criminal activity, just posing a question and hoping for an informed response regarding the general quiescence or otherwise of Auburn's inhabitants. Though I see how my question could be misinterpreted. Apologies for that.)

Yes, like many other 'ordinary Aussies', I do have some potentially 'racist' concerns regarding our immigration direction (and our Muslim intake would feature in that, with my preference being for Asian immigrants, particularly from China or India) but always in only reasonable numbers; no 'big Oz' for me.
I don't have any real problem with Turks or Palestinians, it is the radical ultra-orthodox types (Muslim or otherwise) who give me some concern, so shoot me for being 'conservative'.
(And I have made reference to successful 'assimilation', if you'd care to note.)

Shockadelic,

I do not support increased immigration (as my posts clearly indicate - >Immigration is not an answer to fire-proofing our economy< >Immigration can only be a band-aid, for which future generations will pay.<) - but you continue to misinterpret.
I did however mention unemployment, with a suggestion that what we need most is more jobs - per more, and 'new' industry - and that one possibility for achieving that industry (and jobs) could be via some enterprising and entrepreneurial cashed-up 'new blood' (immigrant(s)) from abroad.
Do you really have a problem with that?
Not masses of skilled or unskilled immigrants, but perhaps a select few potential industrial magnates to get us off our backsides.

Salty,

I do indeed push a Green agenda, I freely admit that, As for my posts there is a bias, I admit that too, but to speak on behalf of others as you do by invoking the 'we' word is a bit rich, you can speak for yourself, but not for others. You along with many other posters give as good as you get, and to say "getting obnoxiously insulting whenever..." is being somewhat sanctimonious. I suggest on seeing, Posted by Paul1405, you simply don't read it. your own political bias is quite evident, and like all of us, you are entitled to hold biased opinions.
You posted this, without any qualification, about migrants living in the Sydney suburb of Auburn;

"Not possibly some out of character development perhaps, per ill-gotten gains from new 'enterprise', like drug dealing or people smuggling, I wonder? Maybe I am of little faith? Or, perhaps inappropriately reluctant to give credit where due?"

Yet, I'm sure you would not post the same inference about people of European decent living on the other side of town, in even more palatial mansions in Vaucluse. I am not so naive to believe every brick in every house in Auburn has been obtained by purely legal means, just a I don't believe it about every house in Vaucluse. I seen your post as a rather feeble, but classic attempt at generalisation and stigmatisation of people. I admit immigration causes problems, problem which need to be addressed. It is also naive to think that Australia is not somewhat constrained by some obligations and other considerations, largely beyond our control, when it come to formulating immigration policy. Our immigration policy has to take into account many and varied factors, the Abbott government realises this, as have previous responsible governments. Australia cannot simply act unilaterally on immigration, no matter how much some poeple would like us to.

Paul,

Australia's population growth rate is the highest or nearly the highest in the developed world. Why are these pressures you allude to acting on us and not on the rest of the rich world? The latest figures that the World Bank has up on population growth rates are for 2012. At that time, our population growth rate was 1.6% (now 1.8%). With the 2012 figures (Australia at 1.6%), Austria's rate was a third of ours, Canada's 69% of ours, the Czech Republic's an eighth of ours, Denmark's a quarter of ours, Sweden's 44% of ours, the US 43% of ours, and the UK half of ours. Japan and Germany are actually declining in population. According to the ABS, 60% of our population growth is from immigration. About a third of the natural increase is from births to migrant mothers. Our own fertility rate has been below replacement level since 1976, so natural increase by the native born population is a relatively small and declining factor.

If the world community is leaning on us to take more people, why isn't it leaning on Japan or Germany? The truth is that this enormously high population growth is being driven by our own business class, which (coincidentally) donates heavily to the major political parties. While most of the population gets no economic benefit or is even worse off, the folk at the top get bigger domestic markets, rentier profits from ownership of residential land and other necessities, and a cheap, compliant workforce that they don't even have to train. High population growth is a wonderful mechanism for siphoning a nation's wealth up to the top. These people don't care about damage to our environment, security, social cohesion, personal freedom, or quality of life. They are insulated by their wealth from most of the problems they are causing, and many of them probably regard themselves as citizens of the world, with no particular affection for the Australian environment or people.

I totally reject the idea that our government can't do anything about mass migration, so we should simply lie back and enjoy it.

Divergence

"I totally reject the idea that our government can't do anything about mass migration, so we should simply lie back and enjoy it." So do I, you will not find anywhere here or elsewhere, that I am advocating an open door policy for Australia on immigration. On the other hand I am equally not supporting a completely closed door policy either. From my point of view our migration policy has to be both balanced and sustainable. Given competing interests, you mentioned "our own business class" and they are one of those I would see as having an interest in the subject, trading partners like China would also take an interest in our migration policy, and humanitarian obligations, such as family reunion and our refugee program are other interests, and there are others as well. Our major source country for new settlers remains New Zealand, followed by India, China and the UK. In some quarters there is a popular misconception that "millions are pouring in" from Islamic countries, not true with the Middle East accounting for less than 6% of our total intake, which has been pegged at around 150 to 160k since 2007 with a net intake of between 60 and 70k for all those years.
con't