Immigration Minister Morrison has moved to stop Illegal entrants from being eligible for the family reunion scheme.

Illegal entrants, even if found to be refugees, will not be able to qualify for family reunion from now on.

This is another disincentive for illegals to try to enter and the move is long overdue. It will also save the government $267 million.

http://www.minister.immi.gov.au/media/sm/2014/sm214434.htm

Maybe a good time to have a close look at the family reunion scheme in general with a view to amending and saving more funds.

Tony Morrison, a wonderful and deeply religious Pentecostal fundamentalist Christian ..... who has absolutely *NOTHING WHATSOEVER* in common with Jesus Christ. A morally corrupt and hate filled anti refugee bigot who will rot in hell.

Conservative fundamentalists like dumb Banjo worship their God .... their Lord Tony Morrison. Deep in willful subservience, they bow down in submissive prayer to their God Tony Morrison.

Don't the lefties just hate it when the current government has stopped the boats coming. Nojh is frothing at the mouth, so it confirms that Morrison is doing well.

Rudd is supposed to be Christian, and he started the problem and about 1200 drowned. Yep labor can take the high moral ground. They said the boats could not be stopped, it was 'push factors'. Just how stupid and incompetent is Labor?

Hey, I don't expect 100% success rate, but Morrison is doing well thus far. Keep going lad.

Closing down some detention centres this year as well. Another huge saving.

My point proven by Banjo's reply.

Banjo = a subservient, ideological slave to far right wing political correctness.

Yes Banjo, Morrison needs to be applauded.

<< Maybe a good time to have a close look at the family reunion scheme in general with a view to amending and saving more funds. >>

It is a very good time to look at our whole immigration program. This is intimately connected to the budget, our economic wellbeing, our quality of life and the sustainability of a decent economy and QOL.

Nhoj, grow a brain!

*BOTH* Labor and the 2 party Coalition are far right wing on this subject matter, and their current policies are close to identical. The Greens are equally hopeless and haven't a clue and use it as a political weapon.

Australia doesn't give a s h i t about refugees or refugee deaths. They just want those dreaded "blacks" and different "cultures" OUT.

Ludwig, grow a brain.

Ludwig,
Of course I agree with you, it is plain common sense. After we have stopped the boats, we should reduce the immigration to zero net, but I don't like our chances of that.

I also do not agree with the importation of 457 workers. We should be training our own not poaching skilled workers from undeveloped countries. They need them more than we do. Industry and governments get away with this cheaply.

It is a pity both major parties have agreed not to debate immigration issues, it is so important for our future.

You know opponents have no argument when they start calling names and talking rot.

Here's what Banjo "really" wrote, except he wasn't honest enough to to say it outright ....

"Ludwig,
Of course I agree with you, it is plain common nonsense. After we have stopped those black b a s t a r d s on the boats, we should reduce the immigration to zero net, as everyone knows immigrants s u c k.

I also do not agree with the importation of 457 workers, especially those black Muslim d i c k s. We should be training our own "white" people not poaching skilled blacks from those heathen undeveloped countries. They need them more than we do, let them stuff up their own black countries. Industry and governments get away with this black importation cheaply. God bless "white" Australia.

It's a pity both major parties have agreed not to debate these black, cultural migrant issues. A white Australia is so important to our future.

You know our d i c k h e a d opponents have no argument when they start calling names and talking rot."

Nhoj

obviously you prefer the crocodile tears of the agnostic/athiest who opened the way to thousands of drowning. Your compassion is amazing especially as you seem to judge others motives so well.

Don't worry Runner, under Tax'Em Tony and Silly Shorten your cherished "white" Australia is safe.

Nhoj,
You're out of hand, you're trying to incite racial hatred, you're disgusting !

<< It is a pity both major parties have agreed not to debate immigration issues, it is so important for our future. >>

Banjo, it is absolutely dismal. You’ve got to wonder why this is so, given the enormous importance of it. And one has to assume that it is primarily due to the request (or order) from big business to stay quiet on the issue.

One also has to wonder why on earth the media, and especially politically analysts, also remain quiet and don’t push the pollies to comment on it.

Talking about onshore asylum seekers in intimate detail is fine, but talking about immigration in general is just taboo. Extraordinary!

Abbott and Hockey, and the other mob, just so totally take it for granted that we should be pursuing high growth, of which very high population growth is a fundamental component that is beyond question.

How extraordinarily wrong they are…. and will be shown to be when we eventually get our heads around the sustainability imperative.

Ludwig,
If I recall accurately, it was Bob Hawke that brokered the deal with the LNP and the deal was that they would not discuss or debate immigration issues but leave it up to the party in government to decide policy and numbers.

At the time, they claimed immigration was too complex for people to understand. However the actual reason was that each party could easily be criticised for having too high a migrant intake. Business was, and is, making big donations to each party to retain high immigration rates. Little consideration is given to what is best for Australia.

So, with a compliant media, the public is effectively gagged on the issues.

I love how Ludwig, a lefty, aligns himself with the handful of racist, far right wing ideologues here when it comes to immigration. Ludwig's morals and political alignments go out the window when it comes to his pet subject ... fear and hatred of migrants.

Nhoj, I note that there is a woman over in Sudan, she is eight months pregnant, has another child and a husband, in other words 'a family' yet she has been sentenced to death for refusing the quit her chosen religion, chritianity and follow the Islamic religion.

And the fact that you are quit happy to allow that kind of trash religion in to our peace loving nation just goes to show what type of person you really are.

Our forefathers should be ashamed to have allowed such hatred into this country. This type of religion does not belong here and should be banned once and for all.

As for immigration, I agree that it should be suspended until we at least get our books back in order and, we must stop all 457's, regardless of color or creed as we are going to need every job we have to get our layabouts off the street, to either fill the jobs, or at least train for them.

As for you, you are a disgrace to this forum and quite frankly, Graham and his crew must be asleep at the wheel to allow your continued taunts to remain on this site.

If you are looking for racisim, may I suggest you look in the mirror.

@Nhoj, Saturday, 17 May 2014 11:03:00 AM

Perhaps you are so preoccupied with your own sense of entitlement that you are not noticing what is going on around you.

Why don't you have a chat with some Asian migrants for instance to find out what they think of (say) the millions of taxpayers' $$ blown annually on aboriginal housing that is hugely expensive to build and is destroyed and abandoned as quickly as it is completed?

Just to take the same group again as an example, do you honestly believe that Asian migrants support their taxes being expended on government and NGO bureaucracies that claim some role in ethnic affairs and fostering multiculturalism?

Most would say rightly that those Asian migrants would very much prefer to keep their tax dollars and choose themselves what services they want, it any.

Do imagine for a moment that the same Asian migrants would support the many thousands of tattooed, drunken slobs, male and female, who are forever whinging about their lack of opportunity but put 'menial' jobs below them?

You don't honestly believe that the Asian migrants, their children and their children's children are going to be putting in all of the hard yards in education , in work and in their own entrepreneurship just to hand the money over in taxes to support you and your sense of entitlement, do you?

You would be very surprised how many migrants prize independence and working for their own and their family's keep. Just wondering how many Asian migrants you would come across as members of the 'Left'. Inverted commas around 'Left' because very few who claim to be Left have any idea of what that entails and are just clutching at anything to protect their slack dependence on the government and taxpayer.

The following link may be of interest
to compare the various comments of
this forum's contributors - a couple
of years ago:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=4400

The last post from Rehctub proves my point made in my previous post. Thanks Rehctub, you put your foot in your mouth yet again, and as usual didn't even know it.

Onthebeach, I support neither left or right. *BOTH* sides are full of scumbags from the top to the bottom, and full of right/left political correctness and ideological crap (greens/Palmer included). I'm so glad I could educate you on this matter. No need to thank me.

@Nhojoe,

<<I'm so glad I could educate you on this matter...>>

ROFLMAO

You and Foxy make a good pear ...or, well, a banana at least!
You both seem to believe you are the font of special wisdom.

But Foxy has an excuse, she only cuts and pastes the stuff from New Matilda.

You Nho-hoper, just make it up as you go along.

Dear SPQR,

Pears, bananas?

Nah. Try coconuts.
They're symbols of resilience.
Even in conditions where there's very little
nourishment and even less nurturance - they
flourish, growing taller than most of the
other plants around them.

cont'd ...

As for believing that I'm a "font of
special wisdom?"

How on earth can I possibly compete with
your - Sir Pository's of Wisdom that
you contribute to this forum regularly. ;-)

Foxy,
Thanks for the link. Found it very interesting. Jewely was a character and wrote funny things. Wonder if she ever became a citizen. One of an army of foster mums that take in kids of all ages and look after them when need be. Be nice to hear from her again.

You must be bored with my same repetend.

Dear Banjo,

I could never be bored with what you post.
You certainly have the knack of raising
some robust discussions.

I miss many people who are no longer on this
forum. However, I am grateful for the ones
still remaining - such as yourself. ;-)

<< So, with a compliant media, the public is effectively gagged on the issues. >>

Absolutely.

But Banjo, why is the media so compliant?

I would have expected them to really stick it to the pollies whenever they can. And surely immigration provides rich pickings!

There is in-depth political analysis going on all the time. Newspaper, radio, TV; they all have it.

And yet I have heard NOTHING about immigration, in relation to the budget. Nor in relation to infrastructure, which is simply staggering given Abbott’s self-appointment as our ‘infrastructure Prime Minister’.

Immigration is critically connected to the budget and to infrastructure. So what on Earth is going on?

Ludwig wrote, "And yet I have heard nothing about immigration".

Ludwig, let me educate you. The reason why they are not making immigration a contentious issue is because ... wait for it .... believe it or not ..... *IMMIGRATION BENEFITS AUSTRALIA*.

But you, and your radical far right wing brothers in arms here, are incapable of seeing factual reality and the overall good. The world to you guys is black and white and nothing else ... no shades of grey, just 100% black and white based on political correctness and/or ideology. It's Ludwig and FORTRESS AUSTRALIA.

Fortunately, Australia as whole is more mature than you guys. That's why it's such a great country, it's civilised and mature, thanks in no small part to immigration.

Ludwig,
There are a few reasons for a compliant media, that suits the deal between the major parties not to debate immigration issues.

Firstly the media cannot get politicians to voice opinions about the rate of immigration, or the detrimental aspects. The polys say very little. They have stuck to their game plan.

Secondly, the major parties and government are the biggest advertisers that use the media, so individual media outlets fear they may lose their custom.

Also big business also buys a lot of advertising space. so the same applies.

Demographic studies have shown that the greatest beneficeries of immigration are the immigrants themselves and business. Business gains because they get an expanding market for land, houses and consumer goods without having to compete with each other.

Don't forget that the major media is part of big business as well and population growth means increased sales for them. Why should they rock the boat?

Big business will continue to make large donations to the major parties so high immigration rates are maintained, irrespective of which party is in power.

Why am I cynical about the major political parties?

And so the anti migrant paranoia and conspiracy theories continue from Banjo and Ludwig. Thank goodness they are amongst a tiny minority of Australians.

Cruelty is the name of the game. It knows no limits...

... unless, none of it is true.

If I were in Morrison's position, then I would tell the media all sorts of lies: I would let them believe that refugees are being tortured before being turned back to Indonesia, so they spread such rumours that deter others from coming. I would let them believe that refugees will be sent under agreement to North Korea and most obviously I would let them believe that family-reunion will be strictly forbidden.

But meanwhile, in the stealth of night, I would allow the refugees quietly in, as well as their families, on condition that they keep their mouths shut. I would provide them with a cover-story as if they came by plane when their turn arrived.

Also, I wouldn't give refugees any tax-payer funds, but I would facilitate the initial contacts between charities and wealthy donors and those refugees.

Can those who hate refugees ever find out whether their hero betrayed them?
Can those who support refugees ever find out whether they accused a saint?

Here is a link about a member of the German Nazi party: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oskar_Schindler

That’s awfully depressing Banjo.

It is really is sewn up, isn’t it. We don’t have a hope in hell of achieving a sustainable society, or of balancing the demand for resources with the supply capability, or of infrastructure actually improving, let alone keeping up with the massive demand for ever more of it.

What is actually happening here with this budget, and with Abbott’s push to increase expenditure on infrastructure, is the greater facilitation of this massive rate of immigration.

It is to a very large extent geared directly towards catering for the demands of new residents and countering some of the negative impacts that they have on existing infrastructure, services, quality of life and environment.

This budgetary ‘emergency’ is nothing of the sort! It is a complete ruse to get more expenditure put into immigration, so that there is less chance of the established population rebelling against this absurd rate of population increase.

The budget could be pulled back into line simply by halving the immigration rate. This would be just as effective as ALL the measures combined that have just been announced as part of the new budget.

Halving the immigration rate would greatly reduce the expenditure side of the budget.

What a crying shame it is that the silly Greens can’t see this and aren’t letting us all know about it in no uncertain terms. If they were genuinely green and sustainability-oriented as they would have us believe, then this is what they would be doing.

The two major parties are highly corrupted by vested interests. The business community, of which the media is a part as you say, are totally pushing this vested-interest position.

So it really does have to come down to a third party that is outside of all of this, which can get the votership to appreciate just what is really happening here.

But alas, even though their basic principles are in the right ball park, the Greens just aren’t it!

Scott Morrison needs to be applauded re: onshore asylum seekers, but definitely not when it comes to the main part of his portfolio.

Nhoj says: <<[It’s all] … paranoia and conspiracy theories … Thank goodness {Ludwig & Banjo] ...are amongst a tiny minority of Australians.>>

Sooooo! we have just had an election where both major parties supported putting a stop to the massive illegal immigration scam that goes under the name of “Asylum seeking”” . And, together both major parties garnered the vast bulk of the votes –YET! somehow (according to Nhoj) the majority of Australians don’t support it !

One can't help but form the impression that deep inside every little left whinger like Nhoj is a big fat Pol Pot just waiting his chance to get out and stamp his authority on the community.

Ludwig,
Yep while I applaud Scott Morrison for stopping the boats, I do not expect other immigration policy to change much.

Having read some of Morrison's views on multiculturalism, I am rather hopeful that MC will be officially discarded this term. However it seems the MC portfolio has been given to some junior secretary, so it may linger on for a while yet. I don't know why they just don't kill it off and be done with it. It is just a failed social engineering experiment anyway.

You mentioned the greens. Yes people have the biggest impact on the environment, so the more people the greater impact. Yet the greens are quite happy not to be critical of the major parties on immigration. Seems they say nothing and accept some Labor preferences to get a few Senators elected. Highly hypocritical of them.

Having farmed marginal country, I almost cry when I see good farmland covered by urban sprawl. It is now lost forever and we have so little of the good stuff.

SPQR, let me educate you. The vast majority of people vote for the Coalition and Labor *REGARDLESS* of what their policies are, or are not. DUH !! Now, do you know what that means? Probably not..... cognition is not a strong point of the radical righties on this forum.

Nhoj,

<<The vast majority of people vote for the Coalition and Labor *REGARDLESS* of what their policies are, or are not. DUH>>

Aaaah! But you have a special way of discerning what they REALLY think, eh?
That is how you were able to tell Ludwig and Banjo that they are in the minority – double DUH!

<<SPQR, let me educate you>>

Better educate yourself first!
What is it they say about teachers: those who can’t “DO”, teach --but what if you can neither teach nor do?
Then you just heckle from the sidelines and give yourself a handle like Nhoj...and hope no one notices that you're a Nhoj-nuffin

Ahhh, SPQR is now name calling. Says it all, ha ha ha.

SPQR, it's *YOU* who has decided what they "really" think, based on them having voted for both the Coalition and Labor. I pointed out to you that they vote for the Coalition/Labor *REGARDLESS* of what the policies are, or are not. That rather basic fact went over your head.

As I previously said, cognition is not one of your strong points.

Nhoj,

<< SPQR, it's *YOU* who has decided what they "really" think, based on them having voted >>

Yep! “based on how they voted* seems a pretty fair gauge to me --LOL

And talking of “cognition” if you didn’t pick-up during the election that one of the Abbott teams
Key policies was to * stop the boats * (And to give him his due, Kevin Rudd had a similar stance)

If ...if you didn’t pickup on that (as you don’t seemed to have!) you’d have to have some REALLY, REALLY SERIOUS cognitive issues.

And as for this <<now name calling. Says it all>>
Who was it that made these calls ?
<<BOTH* sides are full of scumbags >> [Posted by Nhoj, Saturday, 17 May 2014 1:39:19 PM]
<< Ludwig, a lefty, aligns himself with the handful of racist, far right wing ideologues>> [Nhoj, Saturday, 17 May 2014 11:03:00 AM]
<<Ludwig, grow a brain>> [Nhoj, Friday, 16 May 2014 8:40:28 PM]

You’d forgotten about those,eh?
Perhaps more evidence of those cognitive issues of yours?

Poor old SPQR has just proven my cognition point, with his own words. Too funny indeed. And he doesn't even realise it.

Then he goes on to reveal that he's spent the past hour going back over old OLO past posts, looking for "name calling". Ha ha ha ha ha .. the poor old octagenerian needs a life, ha ha. He could find 3 examples during his investigation: Here's my reply to the 3 of them... (1) According to SPQR none of our dear, sweet, honest politicians are "scumbags"... (2) according to SPQR if you call a racist a "racist" that's name calling .... therefore SPQR says you can't call a Christian a "Christian", a copper a "copper", a leftie a "leftie" etc etc. Yep, according to SPQR you can't call people what they are. How "politically correct" of him ..... (3) the 3rd example by SPQR goes to his "cognition" issues. He doesn't comprehend that I was *PARAPHRASING* what Ludwig had previously said. I guess SPQR is getting old by now, so I can understand why he has cognition difficulties. SPQR, please inform your nursing aid of your cognition issues, she's there to help you. Much love from Nhoj.

The other thing I don’t understand Banjo is why there is so little interest about immigration in relation to the budget on OLO.

Most OLOers are independent of vested-interest bias, one would assume. There is pretty wide interest in the budget and analysis thereof….. and yet I can’t gain any traction with my comments about the immigration rate being enormously important to our budget!

No one seems to be interested!

Morrison is brilliant.

In only a few months he achieved what the Morons in Labor and the Greens said was impossible because they were ineffective talking heads.

Nothing frightens the vacuous left whinger posters more than competence.

Nhoj, when are you goi g to get your head around the fact that immigration from our earlier years, Italions, Greeks, Chineese to name a few, are not the same as the immigrants coming here today.

Many of today's immigrants come for the red carpet treatment, not to work hard and prosper as was the case. We used to be known as the 'lucky country' for the right reasons, not the wrong reasons as is all too often the case today.

Your definition of immigration is from a by gone era.

Shadow Minister wrote, "in only a few months he has achieved". How do you *KNOW*?

SM, what you "think" you know is *WHAT YOU'VE BEEN TOLD*. Your preacher Morrison preaches to you, and you religiously and submissively *BELIEVE*.

What your preacher doesn't want you to believe, he DOESN'T TELL YOU.

Your preacher defends the encounters, incidents and attempts when they are revealed by Indonesia or the press .... *ALL* other incidents, successful landings, deaths at sea are *SECRET*.

SM, you are sooooooo politically correct that you have 100% fallen for the rhetoric and secrecy. You'd feel right at home in North Korea, China or Russia ... dictated to by your superiors. You submissively believe comrade Morrison, your superior and preacher, because it reinforces your version of radical right wing political correctness.

You are like many Australians ..... you can't think for yourself. You are a slave to ideology.

Rehctub wrote, "when are you goi g (sic) to get your head around the fact that immigration from our earlier years, Italions (sic ... he can't even spell it), Greeks, Chineese (sic ... ha ha, he hates them so much he can't even spell it properly) to name a few, are not the same as immigrants coming here today".

Rehctub, when the Italians, Greeks and Chinese were migrating a lot in the past, people JUST LIKE YOU were then complaining that these horrid, dark skinned "aliens" would never, ever assimilate, and that they form ghettos and will culturally and economically destroy our very being. You've forgotten haven't you .... remember *YOU* were one of the fearful complainers way back then.

And now, you're merely *REPEATING* the exact same hate, fear and paranoia that "some" Australians had towards those wonderful Greek, Italian and Chinese migrants back then. People were complaining that those horrid Greeks were "different" from those that came before and would never assimilate, then later on it was those evil Arabs that were "different" and would never assimilate, then later still it was the wicked, commie Chinese that were "different" and would never assimilate etc etc etc etc right up to the present day. It's *FORTRESS AUSTRALIA* from Rehctub.

Fortunately, the majority of Australians are far more insightful and intelligent than our little Rehctub. Rehctub's aging folks ... so maybe we should not be too unkind towards him.

Dear Ludwig,

<<No one seems to be interested!>>

The reason I am not interested, is that although from a pure economic perspective I agree with you, I see immigration as a moral issue, so when morals are involved no economic considerations should interfere.

I am an immigrant myself.

As far as I am concerned, I needed to escape the bad predicament I was in, which had nothing to do with economics, but as far as the Australian government was concerned, it was all a game of economics.

I was just lucky to have the perfect skills and experience that Australia wanted at the time, so I was warmly welcomed. My friends, however, who wanted to escape for the same reasons, were not as lucky as myself and at the time believed they were going to die (they didn't). We could only look with amazement at those strange Australians who can only think about economics, the very last thing on our minds.

All I wanted is to secure my feet on the continent of Australia: I was not looking for financial aid, for a job or for any other help and I do believe that other immigrants should not be expecting it either. An immigrant should be ready to take care of themselves - or starve.

So remembering where I came from, I say, don't encourage immigration, don't give immigrants any incentives and don't accept them into your society (unless you want to) - but don't deny people entry to this continent either (unless of course they pose a health/criminal risk to Australians). I am well aware of the inconvenience and consequences of sharing our boundless planes with others, but nobody has a right to deny others access to the whole of one of God's blessed continents.

Two quotes I like:

There are none so blind as those who will not see.

Debating with an idiot is like playing chess with a pigeon. He will knock over the pieces, crap on the board and strut around like he has won.

John,

"Shadow Minister wrote, "in only a few months he has achieved". How do you *KNOW*?"

The reason I *KNOW* is because I have a brain in my head, and I can deduce that if not one activist, nor one journalist from any paper, blog etc, has seen any new boat people arriving, nor has anyone anywhere leaked any information to the contrary, that there is an extremely high probability that what Morrison is saying is the truth.

So I don't believe what just one person says, and I am not a conspiracy nut job that believes the whole world is hiding the truth.

Yuyutsu, thanks for your comment.

Yes immigration is very much a moral issue. But then so should the budget be.

The budget needs to be brought back into line, but it needs to be done in the best moral manner, with the least amount of pain on those who can least afford it. And one of the very big, and very easy, measures towards achieving this would be to slash the immigration rate.

I am not talking about abolishing immigration; I am espousing a new balance, which would still allow us to have a very significant immigration program.

Even at net zero, which is where I would like to see our immigration program end up in a few years’ time after having it gently lowered year by year after the initial big reduction, we would still have a very significant immigration program.

If immigration had been slashed to about half as part of this budget, some 40b$ per annum would have been freed up in infrastructure costs. Not immediately, but over the following few years. And the infrastructure that gets built now as part of Abbott’s push would actually get us ahead rather than just be keeping up... or more likely; struggling to keep but not managing to keep up, with the demand exerted by our enormous immigration rate.

There is an enormous moral aspect to reducing immigration. It comes with respect to those Australian citizens who are battling at the lower socioeconomic end of the spectrum.

And of course there is a huge moral aspect associated with the achievement of a sustainable society, which very high immigration is just totally at odds with.

continued

Further to the moralistic perspective, I think that we should increase the refugee component, while slashing the skills and associated family reunion components.

Even at net zero, we could have a significantly larger refugee intake while still being able to bring in people with especially needed skills…. and their families. But of course: entirely under our offshore programs and not at all via onshore asylum seeking.

We should not be poaching large numbers of skilled people from poorer countries that desperately need them.

And we should be maintaining a big international aid expenditure…. which is another thing that is threatened by having a budget that is overburdened by the demands of massive immigration.

Ludwig,
I think the problem is that the government does not release financial info regarding the costs of immigration.

A while back Diverence gave us the names of a couple of organisations that may have some financial info, see link below.

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6302&page=0#185895

If you, or I, are to argue about budget savings we will need figures.

I suspect you are correct about the costs of immigration but gaining access to the figures is another matter.

It is the usual red herring being dragged across in front of the sheeple and distracting them from the jackboot policy of one term tony.
It will not make one iota of difference in about 6 years time and Oz will have run out of it's own oil, making it a totaly dependent on any country that is willing to sell us some oil.
The price of fuel will be around $8 per litre and the economy will be in a nose dive.
Will we still be worrying about "boat people" then?
I think not.
But we will have all these new super roads that would have been clogged by traffic if there had been enough fuel to run them.
We are being lead to our destruction as a sovereign nation by these furphies that take out eyes from our real problems.
Grow up people and take a look around at what is really happening.

It is evident that some posting here make no contribution to public debate, by research or fact but are no more than abusive trolls and should be banned from the site.

Dear Ludwig,

I agree that not a cent should go towards immigration.
But so many dollars are spent on preventing immigration.

What is morally repugnant is when a group of people believe and act as if they have a right to decide who may and who may not live in this continent (just to clarify, I'm not arguing against self-defence, so I'm not referring to immigrants/visitors who pose a criminal or health risks - just the others).

Population explosion is a global problem, based on the genetic compulsion to procreate. It would be neither exacerbated nor averted by telling people where they may or may not live.

I happen to know two (unrelated) people, both retired with children in Australia. For some years they have been alternating, like clockwork, spending 12 months with their family in Australia, on tourist visas, followed by 6 months in "exile", seeing their new grandchildren only on Skype, while their older ones miss them too. They have come to be part of the community here, so everyone knows and farewells them when their time comes when they must fly out and waits to see them back.

They do not take any Australian funds - on the contrary, they bring money into Australia. It's just that somehow they didn't match the formal immigration criteria, or the quota for people like them was already full.

What cruelty! What stupidity!

(and for the environment-lovers, how are their forced frequent air-trips contribute to the environment?)

Who are those people that allow themselves to play God over others, either inviting or denying entry to a continent they never created?

Ludwig,

Anyone that thinks there is a connection between skilled migration and granting asylum is seriously mistaken. Skilled migrants get no access to welfare, free housing, medicare, public education etc, immediately pay taxes, speak English, and if they don't contribute in a meaningful way are sent home, and largely contribute to the welfare of all Australians.

None of the above applies to asylum seekers, who even if they don't arrive illegally, cost hundreds of thousands in welfare, teaching etc.

Yuyutsu,

Given the above and the existing budget problems, one cannot seriously consider opening the borders, and killing thousands as labor did.

Dear SM,

<<Given the above and the existing budget problems, one cannot seriously consider opening the borders, and killing thousands as labor did.>>

By "killing" I assume you refer to refugees and others who come by boat: I was never suggesting to kill them, but if they choose to take dangerous sea-trips in leaky boats, then they may kill themselves. In that case, the tax-payer should not be paying to rescue them. If individuals or charitable NGOs wish to do so with their own money, then sure they can.

Now what I was discussing with Ludwig is immigration in general, not specifically boat-people.

I consider it two distinct matters:
1. People coming to live in the continent of Australia.
2. People coming to live in the state of Australia.

What I said is that nobody has a moral right to deny #1, except as required in self-defence (e.g. when there is a threat of crime and/or contagious disease).

As for #2, nothing obliges you to accept people into your society.

<< Skilled migrants get no access to welfare, free housing, medicare, public education etc.>>

Neither should others, unless accepted as Australian citizens.

Those two people I referred to above are not asking for any of it (in fact they do pay taxes, speak English, and contribute in a meaningful way, pity their taxes currently go to governments of other countries because they are not recognised as residents). All they want is to be with their families and the families too want their grandparents to live with them all the time, rather than just 2/3 of the time. You have every right to deny them participation in the Australian state, but you have no right to deny them and their families the freedom to live together in this continent.

Nhoj, in response to your second paragraph, may I suggest you go for a walk down Lygon street Melbourne if you think they don't form communities.

But, unlike our own layabout, they stole my land brigade, these immigrants work for a living and didnt come here with the attitude of entitlement, as do so many today. I mean, where else can one arrive with ZERO, then have 11 kids at $5 grand a pop, then sit back and enjoy the view.

Many of these leaches have sucked their last blood out of us and hooray for that I say.

Furthermore, back in the early days of immigration, we had no religion that practiced hatred and harm to all who don't follow that religion.

We are simply no longer that country.

If you believe that immigration has not changed you are kidding yourself, but you're not kidding me.

Yuyutsu,

You and Pericles seem to think that Australia has this enormous carrying capacity and is behaving like a dog in the manger. As I posted in the link above, Australia is what demographers call a "big little country", lots of territory, but most of it uninhabitable. These soil and rainfall maps are from Dr. Chris Dixon of the CSIRO

http://www.australianpoet.com/boundless.html

For comparison see this rainfall map of the US

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Average_precipitation_in_the_lower_48_states_of_the_USA.png

World inherent soil quality map from the US Dept. of Agriculture

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/worldsoils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054011

Grain is directly or indirectly the source of most of our calories. Australia has about 47.7 million hectares of arable land (about 6% of our total land area). In 2012, average grain production was 2.2 tonnes per hectare. France has 18.7 million hectares of arable land and produced 7.5 tonnes of grain per hectare in that year. In other words, we could only produce 75% of what was produced in France, even when we were having a good year. France has far more reliable rainfall than we do, consistently producing these sorts of yields, but we only got 1.1 tonnes per hectare in 2006. We produce about 3 times as much as we consume in a good year and 1.6 times as much in a drought year.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.YLD.CREL.KG

http://www.resilience.org/stories/2010-05-06/can-we-feed-“big-australia”

Then there is the question of whether existing yields can be maintained. We have serious problems with land degradation

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/8896/landdegr.pdf

We can also expect problems with scarce and/or expensive agricultural inputs, such as oil and phosphate rock. Climate change is also a big unknown, with possibly very negative effects. Real food prices on the world market have been very high

http://www.businessinsider.com.au/food-prices-and-social-unrest-chart-2012-11

The Australian Academy of Science recommended 23 million as a safe upper limit for our population in 1994. How can you and Nhoj be sure that you know better?

Dear Divergence,

<<You and Pericles seem to think that Australia has this enormous carrying capacity>>

I haven't followed Pericles, but where have I said anything like that, especially that I am among the last to think so?

<< I suspect you are correct about the costs of immigration but gaining access to the figures is another matter. >>

Banjo, figures of that sort are indeed very hard to get hold of. It would certainly be nice to have some numbers, but I don’t think it is essential to my (our) argument.

It is surely blatantly obvious that massive immigration requires massive expenditure on new infrastructure and services as well generating the need for expenditure on improving existing I & S… and that all of this is indeed of massive proportions.

Popnperish mentioned a figure recently – immigration costs 80billion$ per annum just in the duplication of infrastructure. I have been unable to find out where this figure comes from, but I do trust popnperish to put up real and justifiable stats.

Thanks for the reference to Divergence’s post. She puts up some interesting links there.

Yuyutsu,

You said, "...nobody has the right to deny others access to the whole of one of God's blessed continents" and mentioned boundless plains somewhere else. This appears very close to a Cornucopian optimist point of view. Of course, if there isn't enough to go around, what is to prevent these uninvited migrants from fighting for their share of the resources? A wise government will keep population in balance with carrying capacity and maintain good safety margins.

On another point, fertility rates are very responsive to economic conditions. Look at what economic insecurity has done to fertility rates in Eastern and Southern Europe. Also see Joel Kotkin on the strong inverse correlation between high density housing and fertility rates.

Dear Divergence,

<<This appears very close to a Cornucopian optimist point of view.>>

But I never hinted at optimism. I don't know enough about economics and the like to tell whether this will be "good" or "bad" for the economy. All I know is that when something is wrong, morally, you just don't do it, period!

Kicking people out of the continent is morally wrong, even if we would prefer them not to be here.

<< what is to prevent these uninvited migrants from fighting for their share of the resources?>>

It depends what you mean by "fight". If it involves violence, then you have a right to fight back in self-defence.

<<A wise government will keep population in balance with carrying capacity and maintain good safety margins.>>

Yes and as the first step it should stop encouraging procreation. At 9 months notice, there should be no more family-payments for new babies, no more public-funded health, child-care, maternity-leave and schooling, etc. for those born after. At the same stroke, forbidding people to have babies, as in China, is morally repugnant, hence it should not be done - despite the detrimental effects of having more people on the land, which we agree on. If it is wrong, then you should not do it, period.

Yuyutsu,

If something will lead to the collapse of a society, with possibly millions of deaths, then it is wrong, period. Open borders is that sort of thing. You are morally responsible for the foreseeable consequences of the policies that you advocate. If you have no right to camp out in someone's house or garden without their permission, then why should you have a right to camp out in the territory of a nation state unless its people give you permission?

Dear Divergence,

<<If something will lead to the collapse of a society, with possibly millions of deaths, then it is wrong, period.>>

Who ever suggested indiscriminate access to Australian society?

I wrote that it's immoral to deny others access to a whole continent. There's however nothing wrong about denying others access to society or to locations where they are likely to cause harm, such as cities.

Look at it this way: is it right to treat humans worse than animals? What right have you to deny entry to wild-life just because they happen to be of the homo-sapiens species?

Sure, if an animal is a potential carrier of rabies, or snatches sheep and babies from farms, etc. then you may shoot it in self-defence, but not otherwise.

Other animals are pets. People should be allowed to keep pets so long as they satisfactorily guarantee that these won't bite others or cause any other public nuisance. When pets are a source of risk, it may require owners to keep them at home behind locked gates and an appropriate fence.

Then what on earth allows the state to prevent people from bringing their grandparents under the legal status of human-pets when we know already that they pose no threat of any kind (otherwise they wouldn't have received a tourist visa).

<<then why should you have a right to camp out in the territory of a nation state unless its people give you permission?>>

First, I gave a case where the people that actually live in the territory invite those campers to live in their own homes (even though the government opposes it).

More importantly, it is not the "campers" who overstep their boundary, but it's the state that wrongly dares to claim sovereignty over a whole continent they never created. It so happened that 200+ years ago the British had a navy stronger than that of the Spanish or French, not to mention Australia's original inhabitants, so they said "this is mine". Not so: people own what they improved by the sweat of their brow, but the land belongs to God.

Nhoj......Iam guessing your a UNI Student....Here is some in-side mail....You don't hold the aces...

"You are like many Australians ..... you can't think for yourself. You are a slave to ideology"....

See, the religious IDEOLOGY was the founding glue to all we see and are(religion is a defined correct mind base or would you like a box of bananas and you should know what that means?) and this is not going to change for a very long time.

The thinking ape?

Kat