Dear Shocker,

I wasn't aware that we were getting huge
percentages of "primitive" people. I
thought most of them were educated,
skilled professionals. I'll have to look
into that. I also wonder what percentage
of the population currently on the dole are from
these "primitive" groups compared to the
local population?

So many questions to untangle.

Gillard had 3 years and Thatcher did 11. Not bad.
Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 1979 to 1990 and the Leader of the Conservative Party from 1975 to 1990.

The bottom line, I suppose, is that people coming to another country are obliged to do most of the work in understanding their new home-land, in fitting in, in integrating, in doing what it means to become Australian. Of course, people will, and are entitled to, keep their own first languages and communicate in them, foster them, treasure them and pass them on to their kids - they enrich Australia, after all. 'Meile' for instance is such a beautiful word (in any language).

Of course, it would be great if the each person in the host population learnt, say, a hundred key words in a couple (or more) of languages spoken by people immediately around them. The light in people's eyes is the lifelong reward.

The misfortune for us Anglos is that most of our ancestors came from a region dominated by one language, English. By colonising Australia, that one language became the common language, while the multitude of Aboriginal languages, each spoken in a small area, and by barely a few thousand speakers, weren't even disposed to compete.

But in the modern world, people are much more likely to be bi- or even multi-lingual. We live in a region of many languages too, and always will, so I makes sense to give other languages a go.

Joe

There is a downside to being multilingual, but only a small downside; when watching SBS I get slightly annoyed when the translators take short cuts (I realise that they have to fit the captions to the action).
They also tend to insert the Anglo-Saxon word for sexual intercourse when a far more poetic turn of phrase has been used in the spoken word.

Foxy "I thought most of them were educated, skilled professionals."

You thought wrong.
Most are "family reunion" which has no qualifications required.
No means test, no IQ test, no nothing test.

And most of these are from less developed countries, whose experience with modern liberal and democratic values is flimsy to zilch.

Those with "skills" are not necessarily using them productively here (e.g. "Doctors" working as bellhops).

"I also wonder what percentage of the population currently on the dole are from these "primitive" groups compared to the local population?"

If only the government would tell us!

I wonder how many locals are on the dole because they can't get a job at Mandarin-speaking-only factories in Sydney.

We are stuck with our own native-born "unfortunates".
We don't have to be stuck with "unfortunates" born elsewhere.

With 700,000 unemployed already, we hardly need more.

Immigration should *require* immediate employment, competent English, housing (not a flat with 30 others), IQ above 100, $26,000 in personal funds in case of unexpected work changes.

$26,000!! Immigration should be a serious life choice, not something you "try before you buy".
If you want to "sample" life here, come as a temporary tourist, then leave.

"Refugees" must sign a contract of return. When circumstances in homeland their improve, they go back.
There are numerous ways to measure this improvement (e.g. GDP per capita, Human Development Index)

Dear Shocker,

Here are just some links I've come across on this issue:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2011/June/What_do_refugees_and_humanitarian_entrants_contribute_to_Australia

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-21/carvalho-why-migrants-may-be-our-greatest-economic-asset/6409042

http://theconversation.com/australia-is-at-risk-of-losing-migrants-who-are-vital-to-the-health-of-our-economy-67455