|
|
How does our democracy work? What input do we have on the decisions made in our name by our elected representatives? Globalism, multiculturalism and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan would suggest we have little input in major decisions that affect our way of life.
One of the major decisions to be made in the near future is our immigration policy and the size of our future population.
As has been stated previously migration is of no advantage to Australia’s present population. Mass migration will destroy our life style. Furthermore a survey held from December 2009 to February 2010 and administered by The Australian Social Science Data Archives at the Australian National University which drew on a random sample of 3142 votes, found 69% of voters believe that Australia does not need more people, 31% believe it does. Women 75% are more likely to want a stable population than men 62%. Voters who wanted growth tended to give economic reasons. Voters who wanted stablility emphasised the need to train our own skilled workers and the need to protect the environment. (Swinburne Issue 10, July 2010, Fast Facts).
On the other hand The Australian newspaper has had a mass of articles since Gillard put forward her Small Australia policy, supporting a big Australia, written by developers who have much to gain from the continued immigrant industry
I have listed below some of the comments:
1. Europe shows the alternative to growth is decline. A shrinking population and inflated expectations are a damaging mix. Oliver Mark Hartwich, The Australian, 23.7.10. p.12
2.The Australian, 22.7.10. P1. Reject little Australia, P.M. advisers…..Professor McDonald says, “as we saw in the Hanson era, you don’t want to go down the track of bringing out the worst in Australians”. “Migrants are being used as a scapegoat for the failure of government planning” he said. Greg Sheridan p.7 says Julia Gillard is a national disgrace on population policy and she may do more harm to our long term prospects by this one foolish frolic (population policy) than any recent national leader. Michael Stutchbury, p.7 The P.M.’s vow to ‘slow down’ on populating our cities ia a con on voters that we can continue to prosper from a stronger economy without footing the bill for more migrants.
3. Natasha Bita, p.4. Households are paying at least 10 times more for energy guzzling desalination plants than dam water. Jodie Minus, p.4, Employer preyed on Indians. Indian students unfamiliar with Australia’s employment legislation allegedly paid up to dollars 3500 each to gain jobs as cleaners and burger-flippers at a Sydney Hungry Jacks franchise.
4. Annabel Hepworth, Richard Gluyas, Business opposes migrant cuts. P.7 Prominent business leaders have warned that policies to slow population growth will damage the economy, allow governments to avoid tackling chronic infrastructure neglect in major cities and stoke inflationary wage pressures.. (The Migrant industry) Toll Holdings chief executive Paul Little said a “fairly significant percentage of its employees in Australia came from elsewhere. Business leaders said Japan’s economic growth was impeded by a static ageing population. Westfarmers director Charles Macek said it was “untenable” for a country as large as Australia with it’s rich endowment of resources, to have a small population, not much larger than a very large global city. Eileen Doyle a non-executive director of One-Steel and former chairman of Port Waratah Coal services, said infrastructure was a major issue (and we must pay for it of course).
5. Drew Warne Smith p.6. Premiers support a population growth they can keep up with. Labor premiers past and present have welcomed Julia Gillard’s call to stem the swelling population in and around the mainland capitals in a bid to protect Australia’s ‘way of life’. Former NSW premier Bob Carr told the Australian the nation’s intake of migrants should be culled as it would be impossible to fund the infrastructure needed to support them – and equally futile to try to coax immigrants away from crowded cities when others shared their language and culture.
Well these are some of the articles in the Australian recently. The big end of town wants to shaft us in it’s pursuit of it’s own gain and we will pay the bills without gaining employment. We have little to gain and plenty to lose from continued mass migration only the big end of town prospers. They have the money but we have the votes.
If democracy means anything we can stop this feral immigrant industry in it’s tracks.
In my experience of China, two trade missions in the 1960′s, no deal is a good deal unless it is a win win result for them.
In the 19th Century Jardine Matheson, the great English trading company in Canton and Hong Kong, was required by the Chinese government to pay for all Chinese trade goods in silver, in return they only bought small amounts of trade goods from England.
This trade inbalance was an unacceptable situation for Jardines and their ruthless answer was to supply the Chinese market with opium, bypassing the Chinese government and either by barter or Chinese currency overcoming the inbalance.
The result was the Opium War.
Since the policy of globalisation was introduced by Europe and and America’s wealthy elite and the Lima Agreement, China’s cheap labour pool has been used to make China the World’s manufacturing centre for cheap goods. Cheap labour is not the only advantage China has. She has been given Western Technology for free and we have built Western factories with our capital and China takes little in return except for our resources. Just another trade inbalance to China’s advantage except she does not want to pay market prices for our resources.-
In an article “We must play China card right”, by Michael Sainsbury, The Australian, 26.7.10, p.26, China’s future intentions are plain and also the support they are getting from Sainsbury (The Australian China correspondent, and also the Australian China Business Council, (ACBC))
At a meeting between the ACBC and Shen He Tang of China Metallurgical Group Corporation (MCC), which has built most of the latest mills in China……… Shen’s latest project in Western Australia was discussed, the problem is he wants to build it cheaply and quickly, something he can only do with IMPORTED CHINESE LABOUR. Furthermore to prove the capability of his firm as an infrastructure builder he offered to build a city in the Pilbara that could house 400,000 – 500,000 people, (with more Chinese labour no doubt).
Labour is the key issue for us he told ACBC. He also said, “The facilities in Australia’s mining areas are often inadequate. We could build a town for 300,000 – 500,000 people with proper facilities” and he indicated this would help mining companies better exploit the vast resources of the region and add to Australia’s wealth.
At the moment Australians do not want to discuss importing cheap Chinese labourers. But Shen says without cheaper Chinese labour, including it’s huge base of skilled engineers, it’s simply not possible to build such projects.
“But without such projects Australia misses out badly on needed infrastructure and projects will go to more accommodating countries, for example China’s No. 3 steelmaker”, Wuhan steel is building a mill in Brazil.” (This is an obvious threat.)
The article continues “The MCC dilemma underscores the problems with Australia and China’s relationship, one that is heavily based on trade right now, but is rapidly become more complex as our two economies increasingly intertwine.”
China is keen to invest in our major projects but protects it’s own key projects, Maurice Newman says, “As Australia’s traditional providers of capital - U.S., Britain and even Japan face a prolonged economic slowdown – China is our main option for imported desperately needed capital.”
“In terms of Chinese investment in Australia, the mooted MCC steel mill model could be extended to other sorely needed infrastructure, such as ports, roads and other facilities using a system of bonds or eventually an equity sale.”
Senior Chinese officials expressed their disquiet over original mining tax.
The most revealing comment in this comment in this article was made by Paul Glasson, ACBC China chief who said “There has been a failure at government level to address the relationship with China at a Holistic level”.
A belief that Glasson shares with many others who do business with China.
Holistic has shades of meaning but here they would seem to be suggesting we get Chinese labour and companies to take over the development of Australia with eventual conquest while our overpriced unionists sit on their arses and drink beer.
Well at least the rest of could afford to buy houses and get the plumbing and other repairs done.
The Liberal party was said to be short of cash at the start of this election campaign. Unlike the unions, the capitalists have been careful in the past to give equal donations to both Liberal and Labor parties, but have expected the Liberals to support the immigrant industry. Howard was able to oblige with 300,000 immigrants a year paid for by our taxes and this obviated the need for Australian firms to train Australians to do skilled jobs needed in our industries which were filled by skilled migrants.
The excuses for this policy were the post-industrial society, the equal outcomes policy in schools, multicultural Australia and the rise of China as the World’s industrial base for cheap goods.
The only people to gain financially from this policy were the resource industries, the banks and developers of shopping malls, infrastructure and housing and the allied unions. All this is paid for by the profits from the resource industries.
The Australian, 21.7.10 is full of screams from our migrant industry profiteers about the new policy of Labor and Liberal parties to cut migration and go for a sustainable Australia. A typical comment is “Business supports big Australia”, p.4., Richard Gluyas, Annabel Hepworth in this article Michael Chaney – Woodside and National Australia Bank Chairman said, “paranoia surrounding asylum-seekers (illegal immigrants) was influencing a sensible debate required on population growth”
“I think it’s a real pity when government and oppositions don’t talk about population objectively”, Mr. Chaney said.
Mr. Chaney and his ilk was quite happy to say nothing when 300,000 immigrants were pouring into Australia, so we must conclude that he believes the more immigrants the better.
In another article in the same paper “Gray denies conflict on foreign workers”. Andrew Burrell writes “Federal Labor M.P. Gary Gray has denied that his strong support for employers to hire foreign workers in big resources projects contradicts Julia Gillard’s vision for sustainable population growth.”
“The Parliamentary Secretary for Western and Northern Australia, who is battling to hold his seat of Brand, chaired a high-level government task force that has recommended an overhaul of the temporary migration system to make it easier for companies to draw on foreign labour.”
Major resources employers have backed the task force’s recommendation, warning that failure to address looming skills shortages will imperil projects worth billions of dollars over the next 5 years.
Mr. Gray said that it was “a temporary migrations solution for temporary skills shortages.”
Well not quite, according to government figures, more than 50 % of migrants who enter Australia on temporary section 457 visas go on to attain permanent residency.
The final report of the government’s National Resources Sector Employment Task-Force also said the number of mining jobs in Australia was expected to rise by 5% a year over the next 5 years predicting a shortfall of 36,000 workers by 2015.
It is obvious that except for some workers and the baby boomer shareholders, few Australians will benefit from the resources boom.
There is no great rush to exploit our riches at the cost of our own people. We could train our own young to do these jobs, the problem is that our society and particularly the post WW2 generation, have an aversion for industry, which is the basis of our civilisation. Motivation starts at school and our Left wing and Green teachers should be told to motivate our young to enter industry or be replaced. What they are producing at the moment is unemployable.
The governments part is to provide the free training facilities needed and make sure that employers do their part. If they want skilled people they must train them.
The Liberal party owes our capitalists nothing and nor do we. They have exported our industries overseas to increase their wealth and with those industries went our best jobs on which our families could build a secure future.
Cleaning toilets and making beds for tourists and filling shelves in supermarkets is no job for a family man.
Take the power out of the hands of our unions and capitalists and make this country into something worthwhile like Germany or South Korea.
China’s Labour edge is shrinking, Newsweek, 12th July 2010, p.60.
Europe was nearly destroyed after WW2 when the destruction of it’s cities and horrific loss of civilian life brought a reaction to war and our reliance on industry. The so-called post-industrial revolution promoted by Left wing zealots in the socialist parties and in the universities, who took over the education systems in white communities and sold their particular brand of nihilism to the impressionable young, became the ruling class.
Without question the socialist primacy after WW2 in government, education and intellectual (thought) has brought our civilisation nearly to it’s knees.
Our civilisation is based on industry the transference of that to the Third World, and the adoption of man made global warming with all it’s costly gimmicks, will drive up our cost of living to such a level that only inner-city elite and the building trades will escape the extremes of poverty.
Our standard of living will fall to the level of our most primitive immigrant.
At last it would seem that our reliance on financial services and the green technology revolution, still mainly a hope for the future, countries including the US, the UK, France and Germany are taking a second look at old-fashioned manufacturing as an engine of job creation.
“A recent US Council on Competitiveness survey recently ranked the US quite high – fourth behind China, India and South Korea – on it’s list of most competitive manufacturing nations. One reason was that talent edged out cost of labour as the key factor in determining competitiveness.” How is the result explained? More educated workers are more productive workers another is that intellectual property is a key advantage for US manufacturers and must be protected. Well first of all it takes almost 3 years at the moment for the Patent and Trade-mark Office to process a patent application. The goal is 12 months.
The damage Left wing teachers do promoting equality of outcome in our schools is obvious.
Education must meet the needs of our society not some cock-eyed idea of making all people equal. The best of our students must be encouraged to excel and must receive free university education. Students who prefer to work in trades must have an education tailored to their needs and employers must train their quota of apprentices and all workers have to be accommodated. Immigration should cease to be a source of workers.
As our standard of living falls because we follow the new religion of man made global warming: we must attack the purveyers of policies such as the World movement of people, the export of our wealth to the Third World.
When the Liberal, Greens and Labor parties have reduced our standard of living to that of the Third World you will get the message, that all our leaders want is to take the planet back to the dark ages for all but the elite and a few unionists.
In his article “Empty Country a lure for the masses” by Colin Fraser, The Weekend Australian, 10-11 July, 2010, p.5., Fraser unlike David Uren, 12 July, The Australian, p.21, goes some way to explain the danger Australia faces from the population explosion in Asia.
He says that the offshore population explosion during the next 40 years may well decide who will own our country in the centuries to come.
While Australia’s population may increase to 36 million in 40 years “seven or eight overcrowded countries to our North will increase their total numbers by some 1.25 billion”.
According to the article “Coincidentally, one of the US’s most respected research organisation – for the study of cycles, has identified the start of a 500 year geopolitical cycle, it says it’s result will be a huge and permanent transfer of relative wealth and power from West to East.”
He failed to say that it all started when our white ant do-gooders after WW2 transferred by the Lima Agreement our technology to the Third World followed by our factories and capital under Globalisation.
We must expect aggression from the North and his pious hope that Australian could become another Switzerland is wishful thinking.
Switzerland has nothing of value. We on the other hand have great wealth in our resources as well as the Asians have the flawed view that our country has great unpopulated fertile pastures.
Fraser says, “Australians must accept quickly that we cannot refuse to share our good fortune, nor set our own comfortable pace”. He is right of course. We must explore and mine our parks and increase our coal production and export it. The World is no longer ours and our values will no longer be current.
Time for us is short. The Chinese and Japanese are already buying up our firms and within two years or so will demand that they can replace our greedy unionists with their own labour.
China is the dominant power in Asia and, as the USA is overrun by Latinos, she will not care to protect us. When the Chinese nuclear submarine fleet prowls our coast and pays us goodwill visits, we will get the message and allow in millions of Chinese migrants. Democracy will be a thing of the past and all our bleeding hearts will end up trying to survive in Asian slums.
Russia is the only country xenophobic enough to resist and repel Asia and Africa’s billions. If our race is to survive she is our only hope.
There have been many empires as civilised as ours in the past and they all lie in ruins.
Asians and Africans have the gene of chaos in their make up, they will not inherit our civilisation. Over population in the World would in any case have made that impossible. There will never be enough food and water for all. As the Muslims in Europe and the Latinos in America have shown, they can only live off us; Not take over from us our complex civilisation.
Time is short for us, our present numbers of approved migrants is 297,000 net a year. That is not enough to satisfy China and possibly India. China is the more aggressive of the two countries and only the American Pacific Fleet stops her demanding that we let in larger numbers of Chinese workers. Obama shows the future for America. He is trying to legalise all illegal immigrants in America. If that occurs he will open the border with Mexico.
The new inheritors of America will have little interest in Australia and we will be thrown to the dogs.
Our only hope is to arm ourselves with nuclear weapons and submarines and be prepared to use them. Something I cannot see happening. The only alternative is to go to Russia. She has some of the finest agricultural land on the planet, much of it unused and vast stores of resources. If we do not populate her Asia will.
The matter is too important for us to remain silent. Have your say on what our future should be. Say it now before China rules us and you have to shut up or get a bullet in the back of your head.
The big end of town is becoming worried that both Labor (unions) and Liberal (capitalists) are afraid that Howard’s 300,000 migrant scheme is on the nose with the electorate.
David Uren, economics correspondent, say in his article,” Population surge linked to jobs growth”, The Australian, 12th July 2010, p.21, that “if the new Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, really wants to slow population growth she will need to put the brakes on the economy first” is wrong, the economy is the migrants without them we do not have an economy.
Leading ANU demographer Peter McDonald is out of date when he uses data from the 1890′s, 1930′s, mid 1970′s and mid 1990 to assert that migration falls when there is a slump and rises in boom times.
Europe is in a depression and Third World migrants continue to flood in.
The USA is in a slump and there is no let up in the flow of Latinos.
The population explosion in Africa, Asia and South America will drive billions of Third World people to migrate.
As I have said before and has been proved, building houses, shopping malls, roads, infrastructure for the flood of migrants may keep the building industry and keep it’s union members happy but spending, what we earn from selling our non-renewable resources to China, on building satellite cities in Warigal, Ballarat, Bendigo and Geelong with good transport to Melbourne is a waste.
Melbourne has, like all Australian cities, a falling industrial base and cities without industries should only be small regional centres for an agricultural economy.
France allowed in large numbers of North Africans to man her industries with cheap labour. The big end of town sent her industries to China and now she has millions of unemployable Africans tearing the place apart. Do we want that for Australia.
Uren avoids the real issue; By 2050 Asia will have about 1.5 billion extra people, Africa over 2 billlion.
China needs a reasonably safe resource supplier and Asia, India and Africa a haven for their overflowing billions and Australia will be their target.
They will fight over us.
If we build a nuclear arsenal and fleet we might keep them out but why fight for the big end of town with the sort of equipment the Greens, small l liberals and Left wing Labor give our troops.
If you do not wish to live under an Asian tyranny ‘you’ had better migrate.
has made Britain more crowded than India and China.
(The International Express, 13 July 2010, p.41).
Britain is never big enough for the interfering Celts and Saxons. A great Empire kept them happy for a period, it’s loss after WW2 left these busybodies with nothing to do until they discovered the thought police and political correctness by which they rule England.
They espoused the belief that Britain was evil in making her Empire and that the white race used far too much of the World resources.
To atone we had to open our borders to the Third World poor, give them our industry and give them what remains of our wealth.
“As a result Britain is one of the most overpopulated countries in the World ahead of China and India.”
“England is the most crowded country in Europe and the fourth most crowded in the world as it’s population soars towards the 70 million mark.”
“Sir Andrew Green, of Migration Watch UK, said, it’s obvious to everyone that England, particularly in the South East, is heavily overcrowded.”
“According to official figures two-thirds of population growth in the next 20 years will be as a result of immigration.
Britains Overpopulation Index is thought to be the first study to rank countries according to the ‘sustainability’ of their population and how dependent they are on other nations for their resources.”
The ecological foot print of each citizen was measured. That is the resources they consumed and how many people the country could sustain if it had to be self-sufficient. The UK was rated at 25.8%.
At current levels Britains dependency on other countries’ resources is predicted to increase to 90% by 2032.
At present consumption levels Britain is over populated by more than 45 million according to Optimum Population Trust.
England is in fact living off other countries.
According to the index; the World as a whole is overcrowded by two billion – the difference between its population and how many people it can support sustainably.
That is with a reasonable standard of living.
Both Australia’s major parties focus our attention on ‘boat people’ who number very few, while letting in 180,000 net migrants and many thousands who overstay their visas every year.
The average Australian profits very little from the mass of migrants flooding into our country. We should demand that our government cuts immigration by 75%, why should most of us pay for desalination plants for the benefit of migrants, developers and unionists.
In modern Western society the needs of the aged parents are more important than the future of their children, but then children have always been profligate with their inheritance so does it matter.
According to the Weekend Australian, 10-11 July, p.34, Asia’s appetite for Australian companies appears to have become as insatiable as it’s demand for our resources and our investors are only too glad to accommodate them.
As I have said before China needs our resources to dominate the World and must ensure reliable supplies, what better way than buying up our companies with the eventual aim of taking over our country by mass immigration.
Why else would China be putting so much money into buying up our stocks and now they are starting to teach English at kindergarten level.
Australian investors do not hesitate to sell their shares in our companies to foreign interests. In the past it was to the U.S.A. and Europe now it is to China and Asia. The U.S. and Europe will never recover from the recession, their governments think more about giving money to the Third World and Global Warming than the welfare of their own people. most of whom anyway think that the world owes them a living.
“Leading economist Ian Harper of Access Economics, says that since the Global financial crisis, Australia’s major source of capital has come from Asia and especially China – because U.S. and European savings are tied up at home.”
“There is no alternative at this juncture, he says, except to grow more slowly or increase domestic savings dramatically.”
Australian companies are finding it more difficult and expensive to obtain capital from Banks which are being told by regulators to retain more capital and to price risk more expensively, increasing the price of bank finance.
“Foreign investment since 1788, Harper says. That’s where our growth and living standard comes from”. If our major companies are taken over by Chinese and other Asian companies their profits will leave our shores, China will be mining more than resources in Australia.
Harper says, “Asian investors have discovered that the returns from investment here are so strong, chiefly because our terms of trade are so strong. It doesn’t matter if the cost of entry is a bit expensive – because returns are so high.”
There you have it mass migration and the resultant expansion is no advantage to the average Australian in fact the reverse.
We now manufacture very little in Australia. Except for the comparatively few good jobs in mining and in the building trades the rest of us have scratch a living in the service industries and farming. Mass migration must cease before China owns us lock, stock and barrel.
If the Greens and Left wing Labor and Liberals really believe in man made Global Warming, they should stop any further increase in our population the major polluter of the Planet. It has been proved to be of no advantage to the average Australian. (Productivity Commission report April, 2006, XXXII-XXXIII.)
A list of 18 large Australian companies taken over in 2009 and 2010 is given in The Weekend Australian, 10-11 July, 2010, P.34.`
The risks of high migration! A growing population threatens our quality of life. Policy magazine, Vol. 26, No. 1, Autumn 2010, by Bob Birrell, Reader in Sociology at Monash University and co-editor of People and Place. He has advised several governments on migration policy.
Australian governments of both Left and Liberal Capitalists promote mass immigration when, as the Productivity Commission has established (Australian government, Economic Impacts of Migration and population Growth Productivity Commission Report, April, 2006) XXXII-XXXIII “existing residents have little if anything to gain from high migration. In an economy increasingly dependent on the export of non-renewable resources, rapid population expansion dilutes the benefit from the eroding bounty that can accrue to existing residents”.
The question to be answered is why do our parties of the Socialist Left and Liberal Capitalists both promote mass immigration?
The answer is that they came to this conclusion by different and similar routes. Both parties espouse the non-industrial society and the removal of industry to China and the Third World. The Lima Agreement and the international movement of capital from areas of high wages to that of low wages.
Our graduates of all schools want the liberty to live in any part of the World that they fancy. They lack any feeling for country or race and do not understand the value of freedom and democracy that we, their elders, gave so much blood to preserve for them.
The Liberals are the party of the big end of town, but then so is Labor who has the added advantage of support from the ethnic community. Poor immigrants from all countries vote Labor.
At first our governments attempted to promote the sale of high value added goods and services into the booming Asian region, but this failed because we could not protect our factories from a flood of cheap Asian goods, by quotas and duties, (globalism) and we cannot hope to compete without protecting our technology from export to Asia.
How can we give our workers a reasonable return for their labour, when whole factories with their European technology are exported with our capital to places where wages are 100th of our own.
Our population wants cheap goods and food and at the same time we demand high and ever increasing wages. This is impossible. We must compromise on wages and protect our technology and impose quotas against imports.
The answer to this problem by our Labor and Capitalist parties is aggregate economic growth “the leaders of this campaign (including banks, builders and property magnates) wanted more customers and more dynamic urban growth – which would give an impetus to ‘city building’. This term encompasses the full range of development,; housing, shopping malls, offices and associated infrastructure. State governments (with the exception of the NSW Carr government) supported this advocacy.”
The fuel for this ‘industry’ is mass migration and who benefits besides the above bosses? It’s a jackpot for the building trades according to The Advertiser, 10.7.10, Career One. Carpenters, painters and bricklayers are among the state’s cashed up trades, these trades-people can enjoy salaries that exceed 80,000 dollars.
The South Australian state government supports this industry, its draft Ministerial Development Plan Amendment (DPA) proposes an extra 25,000 residents and at least 7,000 new homes for Mount Barker, a small town some distance from Adelaide. The Mount Barker Council has unanimously rejected this plan. It is the Councils view that such massive and rapid growth will put enormouse pressure of health, education, public transport, waste water and road work.
The Labor government of S.A. does not care, it is asking the Federal government for more migrants, but in what industry will they be employed?
The hint of tougher rules for Afghan and Sri Lankan illegal immigrants arouses our anti-white lobby. Sending refugees home “a scandal” Pia Akerman, The Australian, 5.7.10, P.4.
Speaking at a refugee policy form, Human Rights activist, Julian Burnside called on the P.M., Ms. Gillard, to loosen Australia’s border protection policies, even if it means losing some marginal seats at the federal election.
According to the Burnside “The Tamils in Sri Lanka have been the subject of a genocide and anyone who denies that there is payback going on after genocide doesn’t know what they are talking about.”
Hillary Clinton and human rights advocates have been pressing Sri Lanka to surrender to demands by Tamil Tiger terrorists to create a Tamil state in North Sri Lanka. I believe that Sri Lanka is entitled to use all necessary force to destroy the murderous Tamil Tiger terrorists. In fact I believe that all Tamils should be returned to Tamil Nadu their homeland. They have no place in Sri Lanka or our society.
Policy magazine Vol. 26, No. 1 Autumn 2010, has two timely articles on immigration, the first “Open the Borders” Classical liberals should support the Free movement of people, writes Chris Berg, Research Fellow with Institute of Public Affairs and Editor of IPA Review, while admitting “the environment inpact of a larger population” Berg puts forward a largely moral and humanitarian case for increased immigration.
I take issue with him when he states “The cultural argument against immigration – that migrants may be unable to integrate into Australian society because of their cultural heritage – is even less convincing. Do we really believe that Western liberalism is less appealing to migrants than the cultural values of the home countries they have left? Historical experience suggests otherwise.”
Like most Western Liberals, Berg wishes to thrust ‘Liberal’ values down the throat of all migrants. Something Muslim and Hindu migrants have strongly resisted.
Anyone who believes that Muslims will all discard Islam and will adopt what they consider a decandent way of life is a fool.
Islam is a way of life for which believers are prepared to die. At a Sydney conference of a global Islamist group Hizb Ut-Tahrir (HT) Burhan Hanif from Britain said that democracy is forbidden for Muslims we must adhere to Islam and Islam alone.
Small ‘l’ liberals debate assimilation versus multiculturalism versus integration but there is no certainty that when Muslims are numerous enough that they will even obey our laws.
Their stated objective is for the establishment of a caliphate (Islamic State) modelled on the empire founded by the Prophet Mohammed in the 7th Century.
The alternative view, “Risks of High Migration” by Bob Birrell, a reader in Sociology at Monash University and co-editor of People and Place. He has advised several governments on migration policy;
What he reveals in his article about the greed of the banks, business interests, builders and property magnates and the duplicity of ex-PM Rudd and the Labor party is alarming.
The present population debate started with the call after WW2 for a much larger population for defence purposes. It followed that employment had to be provided and manufacturing seemed to offer the greatest potential for economic and employment growth.
This strategy was replaced at the end of the 1960′s when it was found that only a limited range of Australian industries could survive in the global market place.
In the mid 1980′s, advocates of high migration tied migration to Australia using skilled migrants from Asia to provide high value added goods to Asia. This fell flat when Asian firms proved to be competitive in the new economy industries.
In the 2001 federal election, the Coalition successfully confronted the liaison between the Labor party and its’s ethnic supporters.
At the end of the 1990′s a new factor appeared. There was a concerted campaign on the part of business interests who wanted high migration to stimulate economic growth. These people wanted “city building” and money.
“At no stage, however, did the Coalition Government adopt the population for growth agenda pressed by business interests.”
“It was only with the advent of the Rudd government in Nov. 2007 that business growth agenda has come to dominate Australian population policy. Migration driven, Rudd’s high aggregate economic growth dominated Australian population policy.
“Aggregate economic growth can be the annual rate of growth in real GDP per person and the annual rate of population growth”……..”Aggregate growth does not interest Australian residents. What matters most to them is per capita economic growth “..”As the productivity Commission has established, existing residents have little if anything to gain from high migration.”
A large population makes it impossible to control tlhe problems of so-called global warming.
Canada has a high migration policy. Despite being a signatory to Kyoto Convention by 2005 Canada’s emissions were already 33 per cent above Kyoto’s committment!
The above information shows why so many writers in the press are angry with Rudd’s treatment by the Labor party and why Turnbull is their favourite to lead the Liberal party.
People from non-English speaking backgrounds vote Labor that is why they are preferred migrants. What Julia Gillard does about migration will show whether she is Australian or an anti-white supporter.
Rudd’s migration policy was no different to that of Blair and Brown in Britain. It’s purpose was to destroy Australia as a white nation and make Labor the only party in a one party state. “It is a fact that Australia has one of the highest rates of foreign-born persons in any developed society and that most of our migrants come from non-English speaking-backgrounds countries with little cultural affinity to that of Australia does not seem to have been considered”.
Get this Policy article if you can.
P.S. Julia Gillard in a speech on immigration on the 6th July 2010 changed the face of Australian politics and Abbott had better take heed.
Population levels and illegal boat people will be discussed what ever people like Burnside do to silence us. Gillard will go the the election with this debate and Abbott had better decide who he represents, us or the big end of town. Attacking Gillard will do him no good, we want to hear his policies.
Laws must not be undermined by the courts!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
|
|
