Dear Belly,

My parents came to this country as displaced persons
after World War II - in 1949. They were part of the
Baltic peoples' intake (fleeing Lithuania from the
Soviet Regime). As you know I was born in this country.
They were considered "ideal" immigrants - ones who
assimilated easily and became similar to the host
population as a result of social interaction and through
the shedding of their culture. Yet I find myself having
to explain who I am and where my loyalties lie -
on a discussion forum to strangers. What does
that tell you? That I'll never be accepted?
That after all this time - I'm looked upon as being
foreign? And when I dare to suggest that this is a shameful
thing? Frankly words fail me.

As for what the future holds for this country?
Hopefully it will be better than what I'm currently
experiencing for my granddchildren and great-grandchildren.

Foxy we here are not in truth a good representation of our country men and women, we all seem to push views we rarely bend, and as you like myself, are from other than Conservative ranks we will be highlighted by some, in fact if we polled our country men and women, and asked them both their background and opinion about the subject of this thread, you will find their views are the same as the average, SMH this day has an informative story on how migrants are settling in and it supporets my view, a negativity about, lets face it Muslims,lets some insult others who do not share our views,no one can ignore the truth, this country thrived on the back of the immigration that bought your parents here my mother was one of 13 children, her siblings and their children wed people from that post ww2 migration in take and no one dare tell me they are not Aussies

Foxy said (1)- "My parents came to this country as displaced persons after World War II - in 1949. They were part of the Baltic peoples' intake (fleeing Lithuania from the Soviet Regime). As you know I was born in this country. They were considered "ideal" immigrants - ones who assimilated easily and became similar to the host population as a result of social interaction and through
the shedding of their culture."

Answer-
Concentric circles and perspective. Concentric circles- Australia was created by the British. There are hierarchies of entitlement even within Britain. You can't assume that people are the same as their propaganda. However Foxy's words/ perspective appear to indicate that Australia should have high immigration (Australia should give away its country to immigrants). Loyalty is indicated by peoples words and actions.

It's interesting that Foxy appears to be indicating that certain things are bad (Soviet Regime) and good (assimilation, similarity to host population, social interaction, shedding culture).

___

Foxy said (2) "Yet I find myself having to explain who I am and where my loyalties lie - on a discussion forum to strangers."

Answer- It's not your parentage that have made me question the principles it's your promotion of multiculturalism. If a person appears willing to give Australia away- I might ask myself why that is- and do some research on that person, look at the principles the person uses to make their case, their politics, their links with Australia and how far they go back and to where. Usually when people suggest a course of action its because it's in their perceived interest. Often I find people are more willing to give things away that they didn't earn through effort- you don't identify with it- it's not part of your soul. Generally Australian's in the past have been ok with a small amount of immigration but given the recent high levels of immigration are "no longer happy".

Dear Belly,

A debate about Australia's migration program - how large
it is, which migrants are prioritised and why, is a
legitimate public policy discussion.

The thing about the current debate, it becomes disturbing
when you attack a particular ethnic group. You can have a
reasoned debate about population size and accompanying
issues if you don't attach that to a particular group.
Then it becomes emotive and not evidence-based and develops
a momentum of itself.

One debate that we haven't had is around WHERE immigrants
move to. We are one of the most urbanised countries and the
vast majority of immigrants settle in cities, overwhelmingly
Melbourne and Sydney.

It's interesting that there is a massive appetite in the bush
for refugees and also for migration more broadly. Attitudes
towards new immigrants in rural and regional areas where you'd
expect "redneck Australia", the warmth of the welcome was/is
overwhelming towards both permanent migrants and humanitarian
entrants. Such as we've seen in towns like Shepparton,
Benalla, Bathrust, to name just a few.

This could be a win-win situation if it is well managed.
Australia can maintain its migration levels, even increase its
humanitarian program and you can diffuse the urban conjestion
and address the house price and other issues as well as
address population decline and economic stagnation in rural and
regional areas.

A naïve Melbourne bishop has urged Liberals to “drop the gangs campaign” against African immigrant gangs because it “negatively stereotypes innocent youth”. The Liberal slogans do not mention black, African or Sudanese, just gangs; but, we know which people make up the only gangs in the game.

Bishop Philip Huggins, who “works extensively” with Sudanese 'communities', clearly hasn't had much return from his extensive work, but he objects to the only body that has any chance of success.

So unworldly and unaware is His Grace that he denies that there is a massive problem with African gangs. His ignorant use of “only 1%” of Sudanese being connected to crime overlooks the matter of the relatively small representation of Sudanese in the wider community. The fact is, they are represented out of all proportion to their overall presence.

This is just another example of a churchman getting political because he and his core business have lost relevance. Separation of church and state works both ways. And there is every chance that this man is actually enabling the gangs by going in to bat for them.

Foxy even I can not totally put aside my concerns about SOME Muslims, the very point is THEY chose to be seperate, not as the post w2 intake did, but forever, no other migrant group I can think of confronted us with the manner they dressed, EG BURKA no other had some/a few who openly confronted our very way of life,this is damaging, to them as much as us, 50 years from now it will be far less so,grand and great grandchildren of today's migrants will be far different,it is not racist or xenophobic to highlight such things,if it is then surely some/the few we talk of are too racist? time changes us all, remember, even tell me why if you do not agree, mono culture is dead ,never to be seen again, but we can and will live in a far better world as we learn to live with that truth.