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!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
