# Flood of migrants overwhelm Australia's borders



## Garpal Gumnut (24 April 2009)

While I would agree with many of the initiatives of the ALP government I feel that they are being schmoozed by the rich and powerful in Asia in to allowing queue jumpers to hire boats and just land on our Northern border.

I can see us down the track having "Australians" with agendas in other places, calling themselves Australian when all they seek is a piece of paper to further their agenda.

It reminds me of the Keating years when the Lebanese conflict was headlines, and for which we Australians are still paying.

gg


----------



## Prospector (24 April 2009)

GG, do you realise that 96% of Australia's illegal immigrants arrive by plane!

And that the Chinese group is the largest group of people.  The boat people get all the media flack but really, they are not the problem.


----------



## rederob (24 April 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> While I would agree with many of the initiatives of the ALP government I feel that they are being schmoozed by the rich and powerful in Asia in to allowing queue jumpers to hire boats and just land on our Northern border.



If there was a queue to begin with, I suspect many would have taken their turn.
Most refugees continue to be accepted into countries which can least afford to support them.
Unfortunately we here have many empty vessels making a lot of noise about vessels full of *people * who, given the chance, would quietly go about making a new life in Australia.  
We can afford to be more generous, but the political backlash from xenophobes will ensure our shores remain largely unwashed by the unwashed.


----------



## So_Cynical (24 April 2009)

"Flood of migrants overwhelm Australia's borders"

What a crock...our flood is a trickle in comparison to Europe and North America, 
there's a thousand a day making the run from North Africa to southern Europe.

Some times they have to close the channel tunnel due to the danger of the trains 
hitting illegal immigrants....from memory the largest group of visa over stayers in 
Australia is Great Britain.


----------



## disarray (24 April 2009)

rederob said:


> If there was a queue to begin with, I suspect many would have taken their turn.
> Most refugees continue to be accepted into countries which can least afford to support them.
> Unfortunately we here have many empty vessels making a lot of noise about vessels full of *people * who, given the chance, would quietly go about making a new life in Australia.
> We can afford to be more generous, but the political backlash from xenophobes will ensure our shores remain largely unwashed by the unwashed.




it's not our job to bring in anyone who wants to come. if we said "yeah come along everyone and enjoy our welfare state" then we'd have millions of people try and make their way over here and destroy our way of life in the process.

our capital cities are already overburdened with water restrictions, transport gridlock, lack of property supply, infrastructure decay and over-representation of minorities in criminal statistics. our country areas regularly suffer from drought and lack access to basic services. our health and education systems are neglected, we have homeless and beggars clogging our CBD streets and our elderly are neglected and many struggle to make ends meet. as taxpayers we end up paying almost half our wage on direct and indirect tax, half of which goes to the welfare budget, of which minorities are overrepresented as recipients.

yet you and other nieve idealists like you say "we can afford to be more generous". you really don't have a clue beyond your narrow rainbow view of the world do you?

maybe you can afford to be more generous, but theres plenty of people out there doing it tough, struggling day to day and looking at possible unemployment while people like you try to assuage some pathetic cultural guilt by cramming more people into the country, then accusing anyone who may object with racism and xenophobia.

here's a newsflash for you - the fked up world is not our problem. i know you want to save the day and feel good about yourself, but selling the rest of the nation out isn't the way to go about it.

i am more than happy to send advisors and experts and provide infrastructure support to these countries that suck so badly people feel the need to risk money and life to get here. with our help and guidance we can provide a framework to build a successful first world democracy HOWEVER these nations need the cultural and psychological mindset to do it. if they don't, then why do we want to bring those people over here to destabilise our own society?

as for people saying "europe has it worse", have a look at the state of europe, especially with regards to crime, welfare dependency, loss of national identity and ghettoisation / islamisation of suburbs which are no longer under the control of the central government.


----------



## Trevor_S (24 April 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> While I would agree with many of the initiatives of the ALP government I feel that they are being schmoozed by the rich and powerful in Asia in to allowing queue jumpers to hire boats and just land on our Northern border.




Talk about a non event.

Personally I am for open borders but at minimum, these people struggle valiantly to be here, pity we don't welcome them with open arms.  Seems odd to spend billions on getting ready to shoot people, when we could spend billions on helping people.

Hell we're ALL boat people, even the indigenous Australians, the only difference is the time frame.


----------



## Mr J (24 April 2009)

rederob said:


> IWe can afford to be more generous,




As disarray pointed out, our infrastructure isn't designed to cope with the population we already have. If the governments can't do their job for the current population, they're just going to struggle even more with an increasing population.



> Seems odd to spend billions on getting ready to shoot people, when we could spend billions on helping people.




I'd prefer the government just not spend billions at all, and let people do what they want their own money.



> i am more than happy to send advisors and experts and provide infrastructure support to these countries




Ultimately that is what is needed. These countries have to be improved to a standard where they can sustain themselves, rather than becoming a burden on the rest of the world. Unfortunately, their leaders often don't care for it, and the developed world doesn't seem to either. Instead we ignore the problems until it becomes a problem for us.



> as taxpayers we end up paying almost half our wage on direct and indirect tax, half of which goes to the welfare budget, of which minorities are overrepresented as recipients.




Paying the tax we pay is a result of government inefficiency. Minorities or illegal immigrants/asylum seekers? We're not talking about minorities, and I'd be surprised if they were over-represented anyway.

I don't have any problem with someone who is able to sustain themselves. Perhaps for every productive immigrant we should exile an unproductive "Australian".



> Hell we're ALL boat people




No, technically most of us are only related to boat people :.


----------



## helicart (25 April 2009)

Why the hell do bleeding hearts think people in other countries shouldn't stand  up and fight for their freedom? Are you bleeders such outrageous racists that you think people from developing nations are so genetically disadvantaged they have to be nannied by patronizing spoon feeding metrosexuals....or that they have a familial absence of backbone and can't fight aggressors in their own country?

My forebears fought for their freedom in the UK....for thousands of years...they never sought asylum in a welfare state....

Have you idiots ever stopped to think why you haven't seen Tibetans jumping on boats and floating over to Australia? They've done it tough for decades, and yet no asylum seeking by them thousands of km's across the ocean.....

Anyway, multiculturalism doesn't exist in Australia.....and it has never worked anywhere....not in canada, not in Malaysia, not in Fiji, not in France, not in the UK, not in the USA.......anyone who thinks Australia is multculti is a dipstick.....we expect everyone to integrate into the dominant culture within 2 generations. 

Having a variety of ethnic restaurants in your burb and a convenient supply of migrants prepared to work for chickenfeed doesn't make us multicultural. It is intellectually retarded and an insult to migrants to say so. 

When Australia's population is 20% Muslim, 20% Asian, and 60% Caucasian, and every street sign is written in english, arabic, and mandarin, then we'll be approaching multiculti. 

Sure, controlled migration is cool....but not so much that it creates an underclass of tax revenue negative ghettoes.....with all the crime that goes with it.....haven't any of you been to England or France and seen the issues with poorly controlled migration? 

ANyway, you anaemic bleeders voted in Labor and they haven't got the brains to keep infrastructure up to speed with their migrant intake.....Rudd just gave away 21b which could have built a lot of infrastructure....like maybe the dam 'we had to have'....

In 1989, Kevin Rudd as chief of staff under Wayne Goss canned the Wolfdene Dam in SE Qld to appease airhead greenies and friends of the ABC. It was the first thing he did in office.....That decision will restrict the population growth of SE Qld forever.....SE Qld's water supply got down to 15% in 2007, and there's no viable plans to increase the water supply here. That's what State Labor govts do. Bracks screwed Victoria and the unions have screwed NSW. 

For as long as dkhead unionists and permanently indignant lawyers with no private commercial experience are put in control of billions, Australians will get short changed....


----------



## helicart (25 April 2009)

and read the papers this morning everyone.....Rudd just threw 21B at Chinese plasma televisions, the profits of which the Chinese will no doubt use to fund the modernization and expansion of their navy.......

meanwhile Rudd wants our military to cut 15B over the next 10 years.....

but he also now realizes our national security needs to be escalated quickly and significantly.....new subs, warships, patrol boats, helicopters, F35s......

I tell you this career public servant, this Mandarin speaking international man of mystery, this fine weather Christian, this Maaate of Obama.....couldn't run a chook raffle.......


----------



## rederob (25 April 2009)

As I posted:







rederob said:


> Unfortunately we here have many empty vessels making a lot of noise ....



Despite being a wealthy nation we play an exceptionally minor role in accommodating refugees.
By redirecting monies from border defence to humanitarian resettlement programs we would benifit both socially and financially in the longer term.
In schools throughout Australia the honour boards are strewn with non-Anglo-Saxon names, as overseas born parents sacrifice everything for their child's education.
Like it or not, some of these people will be the leaders of tomorrow, as Obama has proven.


----------



## Nyden (25 April 2009)

rederob said:


> As I postedespite being a wealthy nation we play an exceptionally minor role in accommodating refugees.
> By redirecting monies from border defence to humanitarian resettlement programs we would benifit both socially and financially in the longer term.
> In schools throughout Australia the honour boards are strewn with non-Anglo-Saxon names, as overseas born parents sacrifice everything for their child's education.
> Like it or not, some of these people will be the leaders of tomorrow, as Obama has proven.




Ah, the race card ... sorry, but I really believe that race has nothing to do with the problem, it's more simply a matter of numbers.

A line needs to be drawn, otherwise refugees *will* flood into Australia, and as previously stated - we simply don't have the infrastructure for it. The idea that all of these people are going to become productive members of society is nonsense as well. Many may well do this, but many may not. 
Do you really believe that a middle aged man with no prior education, no knowledge of the English language, and probably a whole pile of other disadvantages, is really going to contribute in any sort of meaningful way? Few might, but I would argue that a great deal of them would not. They may work for 10 years at minimum wage, pay minimal tax, and at which point they'll begin collecting the pension until the day they die. 

As I said, it's a numbers game, and with the global population exploding, and resources dwindling, everything else is irrelevant.


----------



## Prospector (25 April 2009)

helicart said:


> My forebears fought for their freedom in the UK....for thousands of years...they never sought asylum in a welfare state....
> ...



Except they did ship their convicts to Australia and colonised (read: invaded) most of the countries around Asia.
And I think history will tell you that the UK received a damned lot of help from Australian 'colonies' in protecting their borders.  And Winston Churchill did leave Australia WIDE OPEN to attack in order to protect his own.  UK simply didnt do it all, ON THEIR OWN!  Far from it.

I do agree with you about the infrastructure issue but that is a story that can be told in both Labor and Liberal and National circles.  I think Joh has a lot to answer for in Queensland infratsructure issues.

And I am NOT a leftie commo bleeding heart unionist!  And my heritage is British!


----------



## Bafana (25 April 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> Talk about a non event.
> 
> Personally I am for open borders but at minimum, these people struggle valiantly to be here, pity we don't welcome them with open arms.  Seems odd to spend billions on getting ready to shoot people, when we could spend billions on helping people.
> 
> Hell we're ALL boat people, even the indigenous Australians, the only difference is the time frame.




My feelings exactly.


----------



## Calliope (25 April 2009)

rederob said:


> As I postedespite being a wealthy nation we play an exceptionally minor role in accommodating refugees.




No refugees in this country are actually "accommodated" until they can be provided with meaningful employment. We can't claim that we have "accommodated " anyone who is kept on welfare for years. If we think this is our obligation we could provide this in their homeland where it could be put to better use.

During the recession the chances of unskilled immigrants finding meaningful employment (or any employment) are dismal. If we have any spare resources we should direct it to helping the thousands of migrants, who are in a similar situation to the Bond factory workers in Woollongong. These women, the majority of whom are migrants have no other skills and through no fault of their own are on the scrap heap.

Charity should begin at home.


----------



## helicart (25 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> Except they did ship their convicts to Australia and colonised (read: invaded) most of the countries around Asia.




And all those countries had the freedom to defend themselves against the naturally aggressive behaviour of other 'tribes'. however, anglos had the strongest natural selection advantage....just as China has now built an advantage over australia, and will within 100 years imho, have colonized Australia. 

History will show caucasians blew their opportunity over 200 years stewarding Australia, as wasted on getting fat, lazy, dumb, and outsourcing labor to more ignorant people overseas..and security to the USA....well the party is fast coming to an end.....Rudd is only waking up to that now....with the White paper that was released this week outlining the power imbalances and threats within our region...and need for a massive military build up in Australia[/COLOR]



Prospector said:


> And I think history will tell you that the UK received a damned lot of help from Australian 'colonies' in protecting their borders.




Well we all know it was the USA that saved the UK, and Hitler lost the war rather than the Allies won it.....he made many strategic errors later in the war, that if hadn't been made, he would have securely controlled Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East oil states. (but that's another story) 



Prospector said:


> And Winston Churchill did leave Australia WIDE OPEN to attack in order to protect his own.  UK simply didnt do it all, ON THEIR OWN!  Far from it.




More wide eyed naive ignorant fool Australia.....and we still haven't learnt the lesson that ultimately we are responsible for our defence....all us Aussies sitting on our bums playing with our computers wouldn't be doing so if not for the USA saving our dumb asses...anyone who thinks we can continue to oursource our security to them deserves the Darwinian selection disadvantage that is now unfolding. 

While Labor and the left have prioritized redistributing magic pie (that appears out of nowhere) to people to be unproductive including our indigenous brothers and sisters, they have been blissfully ignorant of the power shifts happening in the world around them....Australia and Rudd are about to be shocked out of that.......and he is manically having to change his election platform....when was the last time Rudd or the media front paged reconciliation? what happened to the computer for every student? what happened to ETS? what is Bligh doing about SE Qld water for the long term? hahahhahaa.......funny how Rudd et al have finally woken up to the fact that it really is "all about the economy stupid"



Prospector said:


> I do agree with you about the infrastructure issue but that is a story that can be told in both Labor and Liberal and National circles.  I think Joh has a lot to answer for in Queensland infratsructure issues.




That's highly debatable.....but I haven't got time today...the trouble is all these milksop lucky country types have made a lot of crap decisions because they think we can rely on the USA to defend us and if we are nice to foreigners and let a token few come and open up restaurants here, foreigners won't attack us......haahhahaa.....Australia's misallocation of resources towards 'playing at the beach' and equality for all, is due to a seriously distorted mindset that will see us lose control of Australia.......but hopefully I won't be here when it happens...



Prospector said:


> And I am NOT a leftie commo bleeding heart unionist!  And my heritage is British!




And my forebears were pre 1850 free settlers many of who died young fighting for world democracy or breaking their health working land that had laid idle since the beginning of time...and according to many Lefties, should be left idle...



rederob said:


> As I postedespite being a wealthy nation we play an exceptionally minor role in accommodating refugees.




Really? how wealthy are we? we haven't got the wealth or means of production to amass the hardware to put up a good defense of our country...not to mention the population's lack of health, obesity, and an anti-war general recalcitrant malaise amongst the young.....

Over 95% of 25-30 yo couldn't walk 10km in rugged terrain with 30kg on their back, and most young men don't know squat about machinery and engines.... they don't know how to use a screwdriver properly for God's sake....let alone a Steyr that can kill people (but they know a lot about Aboriginal rights)....I know this as a health professional intimate with the defence forces...low back pain and sprained ankles would be the norm.....

The bleeders think we're wealthy because they think bling is wealth......and they have an 8 yo's understanding of events overseas.....a lot of the difficulties in developing nations are due to overpopulation and wilfully not wanting to do the hard yards to do what is needed to create wealth and stability....go figure....it is up to other nations to realize their ignorance, apathy, and religious extremism create their problems....if they want a lifestyle like ours, they need to learn to harden the fk up and drag their butts into the 21st century.....and fight cro magnons like the Taliban and Al Queda rather than running away to..........hmmmmm......"Australia, Europe, Scandinavia look nice....James, Australia please"....  and once here cling to their ignorance and a religion that created their problems, smug in the fact that someone else is looking after them....


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 April 2009)

> and all those countries had the freedom to defend themselves against the naturally aggressive behaviour of other 'tribes'. however, anglos had the strongest natural selection advantage....just as China has now built an advantage over australia, and will within 100 years imho, have colonized Australia.





> History will show caucasians blew their opportunity over 200 years stewarding Australia, as wasted on getting fat, lazy, dumb, and outsourcing labor to more ignorant people overseas..and security to the USA....well the party is fast coming to an end.....Rudd is only waking up to that now....with the White paper that was released this week outlining the power imbalances and threats within our region...and need for a massive military build up in Australia.




Could I suggest you read and analyse what you write. Writing/typing allows one to assess what they think and to put it into sensible words. Fantastic spin on things though.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (25 April 2009)

rederob said:


> As I postedespite being a wealthy nation we play an exceptionally minor role in accommodating refugees.
> By redirecting monies from border defence to humanitarian resettlement programs we would benifit both socially and financially in the longer term.
> In schools throughout Australia the honour boards are strewn with non-Anglo-Saxon names, as overseas born parents sacrifice everything for their child's education.
> Like it or not, some of these people will be the leaders of tomorrow, as Obama has proven.



The race card played again. IS this what the people in power think of Australians? Perhaps the UN thinks this? 

The middle aged hairy man with no language skills is not coming ot AUstralia to be put on the walls of schools. He is coming to get HANDOUTS because he knows Australia is a HANDOUT nation that gives more to illegals than its citizens. That hairy middle aged man is keen to come here to help pay for his WIVES. This is not contributing, it is far from contributing. It is insulting to those who work, pay taxes, and expect to have a future much like their parents. 
Obama is the left winger's idol, so nothing alarming about people's admiration for him.


----------



## helicart (25 April 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Could I suggest you read and analyse what you write. Writing/typing allows one to assess what they think and to put it into sensible words. Fantastic spin on things though.




could I suggest in addition to novice trading, you familiarize yourself with Darwin's survival advantage, which is the context of the terminology I am using.....though if your education was soft, and left leaning humanities, you may have never heard of Darwin....it is usually reserved for those doing science....

as always, no offence intended if you didn't intend....


----------



## metric (25 April 2009)

helicart...what NATURAL SELECTION criteria has china got in common with 19th century england? LOL

there is a war being arranged.....THATS why rudd has BEEN TOLD to spend on defence....ARRANGED...!! GET IT?

you quote ql ciada??? wow. i thought you said you knew something???

you dont get out much...most 25-30 yo COULD walk 10km over rough terain......


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 April 2009)

helicart said:


> could I suggest in addition to novice trading, you familiarize yourself with Darwin's survival advantage, which is the context of the terminology I am using.....though if your education was soft, and left leaning humanities, you may have never heard of Darwin....it is usually reserved for those doing science....




Bowls the flipper, Wys. plays a cover drive for 4 runs. :


----------



## Bobby (25 April 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> The middle aged hairy man with no language skills is not coming ot AUstralia to be put on the walls of schools. He is coming to get HANDOUTS because he knows Australia is a HANDOUT nation that gives more to illegals than its citizens. That hairy middle aged man is keen to come here to help pay for his WIVES. This is not contributing, it is far from contributing. It is insulting to those who work, pay taxes, and expect to have a future much like their parents.
> .




Hello Snake ,
 Was listening to the radio when this was said ~ our govt pays a refugee & spouse over $400 each plus a hardship allowance on top of that per week , works out to be around $56,000 P/A  

No wonder the poor old Aussie pensioner can't get an extra $30 !!


----------



## Calliope (25 April 2009)

Helicart,

 I am afraid you are a voice crying in the wilderness. You are coming on too strong for the ASF followers. Their priorities lie in more trivial matters. Matters which could shape this country's future don't get much traction.eg;

In the last fortnight a thread titled "Weight Loss" attracted 3545 viewers and 249 replies.

In the same period the thread titled "Afghanistan" attracted nil replies, and has had only 55 replies in six months.

And all this at a time when the stability of Afghanistan (and by extension Pakistan) is considered by thinking people to be the greatest threat to world order. 
Anyone doubting this should read;

http://www.smh.com.au/world/warning-...0412-a40u.html

which predated Hilary Clinton's warning.


----------



## helicart (25 April 2009)

metric said:


> helicart...what NATURAL SELECTION criteria has china got in common with 19th century england? LOL
> 
> Do I have to spoon feed you slackers everything? go and read some history, science, sociology, psychology, economics, and political science rather than imagining patterns on charts for the next 10 hours...
> 
> ...




really...because you and your 2 mates do it all the time hey? great statistical rigor you are using there ..... METRIC hahahahaha ..... I'd put my money on you and your mates never having walked 1km with 30kg on your backs.....let alone doing 10 km up and down hills in the tropics 7 days in a row.


----------



## metric (25 April 2009)

helicart....natural selection? hehahah.

shows you up, straight off.......lol


----------



## Prospector (25 April 2009)

Really cant be bothered discussing this with someone who holds such rabid views.  Nothing to gain.  For someone who has only been a member for just over a week you presume to know the habits of many!

And as for this:_ Do I have to spoon feed you slackers everything? go and read some history, science, sociology, psychology, economics, and political science rather than imagining patterns on charts for the next 10 hours..._  which is posted within a quote so it cant be attributed to you, you are so damn presumptious!  

And by the way, even though you are posting in the General Chat section, this is largely a share forum, so perhaps you need to redirect your angst about share trading in another more appropriate forum.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 April 2009)

Calliope said:


> Helicart,
> 
> I am afraid you are a voice crying in the wilderness. You are coming on too strong for the ASF followers. Their priorities lie in more trivial matters. Matters which could shape this country's future don't get much traction.eg;
> 
> ...




I'm just watching Bill O'Reilly ( a commentator not known to have outrageous views) on Foxnews, and the USA seems to be building up for a war in Pakistan and Obama has lost traction for his support of an investigation in to waterboarding. The US Commander in Chief will investigate his predecessor's decisions in a War situation after 9/11.

So we can add Pakistan to the nations who will be sending their nationals over our borders soon as the Americans will bog down there too without effective leadership.

No wonder the Ruddmeister has a hunted look about him.

gg


----------



## metric (25 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> Really cant be bothered discussing this with someone who holds such rabid views.  Nothing to gain.





i agree...

and what is this 30kg thingy anyway? are we talking kokoda? is he saying todays BIGGER, healthier, longer lived young people of australia couldnt do thestruggle? BULL****..!!! i have faith in my people. ive played sport with and against aussies. i know we can dig in and have a go. 

some fat, lazy, bigoted 'never has been' , sitting behind a computer may not think so....


----------



## helicart (25 April 2009)

Calliope said:


> Helicart,
> 
> I am afraid you are a voice crying in the wilderness. You are coming on too strong for the ASF followers. Their priorities lie in more trivial matters. Matters which could shape this country's future don't get much traction.eg;
> 
> which predated Hilary Clinton's warning.




I am having some fun on a week off work Call, and have been trying to profile ASF users. 

I admit I wasn't taking Afghanistan seriously until a few months ago myself..hadn't appreciated the Taliban's aggression in Pakistan.......but when Hilary "let's give everyone free health care as well as free houses" the peacenik started to take it seriously, so did I....and I thought the Obamarama Australian cheer squad might take more notice of one of their own....like Hillary....

Nevertheless, I'll be scaling back on posts from now.....back to the harsh light of free markets on Monday....and the vege patch needs tending...


----------



## Prospector (25 April 2009)

Calliope said:


> I am afraid you are a voice crying in the wilderness. You are coming on too strong for the ASF followers. Their priorities lie in more trivial matters. Matters which could shape this country's future don't get much traction.eg;
> 
> In the last fortnight a thread titled "Weight Loss" attracted 3545 viewers and 249 replies.
> 
> ...




And Calliope, I dont even feel I can contribute anything to a thread on Afghanistan because I simply dont know what to do.  Weight loss on the other hand, something I know about.  Perhaps you would be happier if I made some drivel comment on Afghanistan and then that would up the post count for you?


----------



## metric (25 April 2009)

helicart said:


> I am having some fun on a week off work Call, and have been trying to profile ASF users.
> 
> I admit I wasn't taking Afghanistan seriously until a few months ago myself..hadn't appreciated the Taliban's aggression in Pakistan.......but when Hilary "let's give everyone free health care as well as free houses" the peacenik started to take it seriously, so did I....and I thought the Obamarama Australian cheer squad might take more notice of one of their own....like Hillary....
> 
> Nevertheless, I'll be scaling back on posts from now.....back to the harsh light of free markets on Monday....and the vege patch needs tending...




no you are not coming on too strong... your opinon is full of holes and prejudices. the chinks have done nothing for 5ooo years. they are now a cheap source of labour for the worlds elite companies. nothing more,,much less.


----------



## metric (25 April 2009)

aaannnddd..  the assumption chinese invented the wheel, silk, noodles etc is based on flimsy evidence. like your 'natural selection' theory, it is most likely that this tech was imported via the route that was to become the silk road. see, even in those days, they used the chinese to do the tedious work....



> But they soon discovered that not everyone wants that information made known. Proof that Caucasians were living in the region 4,000 years ago clearly refutes China's claim of historical sovereignty there -- and, more important, challenges its hold on the oil-rich province of Xinjiang.




http://www.s8int.com/page26.html


----------



## helicart (25 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> Really cant be bothered discussing this with someone who holds such rabid views.




then why don't you just remind me this is a share forum and go back to reading your charts?   hahhahaha   

btw, I do TA too....but I try and do it in a scientifically disciplined way.....though if you are one of the ASF inner circle, I guess the circle isn't going to be of much help to me..........I've raised several posts regarding more heady aspects of trading that have gone unanswered Pro....I posted an xls that I asked for help with with regards to monte carlo simulations applied to non parametric distributions, but no one has responded... This issue would be well understood by anyone who has traded for more than 5 years, with the discipline of James Simons.  I had hopes that wabbit would understand what I am on about, but he seems to be away atm...
 


metric said:


> i agree...
> 
> and what is this 30kg thingy anyway? are we talking kokoda? is he saying todays BIGGER, healthier, longer lived young people of australia couldnt do thestruggle? BULL****..!!! i have faith in my people. ive played sport with and against aussies. i know we can dig in and have a go.
> 
> some fat, lazy, bigoted 'never has been' , sitting behind a computer may not think so....




you are just confirming your ignorance Metric.....I could excuse it if you were 18 but not over 21....you're not still living at home with Mum are you?


----------



## Calliope (25 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> And Calliope, I dont even feel I can contribute anything to a thread on Afghanistan because I simply dont know what to do.  Weight loss on the other hand, something I know about.  Perhaps you would be happier if I made some drivel comment on Afghanistan and then that would up the post count for you?




As I said, it's a matter of priorities.


----------



## Prospector (25 April 2009)

Calliope said:


> As I said, it's a matter of priorities.



Nope, its a matter of knowing where your 'knowledge' wont stand scrutiny.  A pity others dont do this too!  Present company excluded Calliope.


----------



## metric (25 April 2009)

> you are just confirming your ignorance Metric.....I could excuse it if you were 18 but not over 21....you're not still living at home with Mum are you?




hahaha. NATURAL SELECTION.....!!! hahahaha. cmon, qualify that statement genius??!! hahaha natural selection!!!! hahahahaha

like the rest of your post. pure drivel.


----------



## helicart (25 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> And Calliope, I dont even feel I can contribute anything to a thread on Afghanistan because I simply dont know what to do.  Weight loss on the other hand, something I know about.  Perhaps you would be happier if I made some drivel comment on Afghanistan and then that would up the post count for you?




No, don't bother making drivel comments about Afghanistan.....just keep them flowing on diet......like this question you asked:

"   How many calories in a 1000mg Omega 3 capsule?"

was that a rhetorical question, or do you really mean that despite knowing about weight loss, you don't know the answer?

anyway, don't bother answering, I have to go pick up some cadets from an Anzac Day function and tend the veges later today....then cook for 6 tonight, then go on a 40km bike ride tomorrow morning, then do brunch, then have a rest before going back to work on Monday.....

don't spend all day inside getting fat hey?


----------



## Prospector (25 April 2009)

helicart said:


> No, don't bother making drivel comments about Afghanistan.....just keep them flowing on diet......like this question you asked:
> 
> "   How many calories in a 1000mg Omega 3 capsule?"
> 
> was that a rhetorical question, or do you really mean that despite knowing about weight loss, you don't know the answer?




Your point being?  Unlike you I am able to admit I dont know all the answers.


----------



## helicart (25 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> Your point being?  Unlike you I am able to admit I dont know all the answers.






you prefer to cut down tall poppies so they are the same height huh? 
Marx thought the same....

unlike me, who has post grad quals in health, and am successfully self employed in the field, maybe I do have all the answers about diet.....but as you say, this is a share forum......  

have a good arvo...


----------



## nunthewiser (25 April 2009)

lol unreal


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 April 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> lol unreal




never thought I'd ever say it, but agree.

unreal

gg


----------



## ColB (25 April 2009)

> Originally posted by *GG*
> "never thought I'd ever say it, but agree. unreal
> 
> gg




Hang on GG, you started this thread!

I've found it highly entertaining and the obvious winner in terms of imparted knowledge/research is helicart and Calliope.  

Whilst I just so happen to agree with their views this is not the sole reason why they have won this debate hands down.  

They have gone to great effort to impart their knowledge/views, unlike some who are quick to knock them but dont respond significantly with good reason/s why we should accept these illegal immigrants.

I've gotta go, Essendon-Collingwood game on at the G, beer waiting & potatoe chips.  That won't hurtwill it Prospector?

Enjoy your ride tomorrow helicart.  If you're in Melbourne I think you can forget it, gunna be wet and cold like Adelaide today.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 April 2009)

ColB said:


> Hang on GG, you started this thread!
> 
> I've found it highly entertaining and the obvious winner in terms of imparted knowledge/research is helicart and Calliope.
> 
> ...




Sorry guys, am lost , can someone summarise?

gg


----------



## ColB (25 April 2009)

> Originally posted by GG
> 
> never thought I'd ever say it, but agree.
> 
> ...




Sorry GG, I thought the inference in your comment in reply to Nunthewiser was a remark in reference to how this thread had degenerated into a battle of posters, namely helicart, metric & prospector.  Sorry if I confused you!

Back to the footy.


----------



## rederob (25 April 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Sorry guys, am lost , can someone summarise?
> 
> gg



Two thirds of migrants are, on arrival, aged between 25 and 45, and are relatively evenly divided on gender.
In recent years, most are arriving with valuable skills, have a lower unemployment rate and occupy white collar/professional occupations at a rate higher than Australian born. 
Most will need to wait for 2 year before being eligible for social security benefits: They receive no more nor less than Australian-born attracting social security benefits.
New Zealanders arrive in Australia at twice our intake of "humanitarian" refugees (averaging just over 15,000pa over the past 20 years).
Migrants arriving with relatively poor English language skills experience unemployment around twice the average rate.  However, as years pass their unemployment rate nears that of the average rate, despite a large proportion of this population having minimal or no education at time of entry.

The ignorance displayed by some here about the plight and motives of refugees is symptomatic of xenophobic attitudes, and gains traction with those will never seek to look over the horizon.  I trust they never fall on hardship and need a helping hand.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 April 2009)

rederob said:


> Two thirds of migrants are, on arrival, aged between 25 and 45, and are relatively evenly divided on gender.
> In recent years, most are arriving with valuable skills, have a lower unemployment rate and occupy white collar/professional occupations at a rate higher than Australian born.
> Most will need to wait for 2 year before being eligible for social security benefits: They receive no more nor less than Australian-born attracting social security benefits.
> New Zealanders arrive in Australia at twice our intake of "humanitarian" refugees (averaging just over 15,000pa over the past 20 years).
> ...




Thanks Red for putting it all in context.

How do you feel about our right to decide the future mix of Australia?

gg


----------



## Prospector (25 April 2009)

helicart said:


> you prefer to cut down tall poppies so they are the same height huh?
> Marx thought the same....
> 
> unlike me, who has post grad quals in health, and am successfully self employed in the field, maybe I do have all the answers about diet.....but as you say, this is a share forum......
> ...




Are you suggesting you are a tall poppy then?   

The thread title is about migration; GG must be wondering where his thread has gone.  I (and others) disagreed that boat people were the real issue, you and others agreed that illegal migration was a significant issue; somehow out of that you became a tall poppy simply because others challenged your views of the world?

Calliope then raised the issues of priorities and used the diet thread as an example, and so you dredged through that thread to find a post I made querying the calorie content of fish oil.  Why this is important I dont understand, but did you do that so you could post your qualifications and therefore implied superiority over everyone else?

Actually, I have never seen anyone post their qualifications before, maybe Kennas?  I guess I am more impressed by what someone has to say, and their supporting argument and take them at face value, rather than think that they have qualifications therefore that makes them right.  And I think some of the people I admire most on this forum are those with whom I have had disagreements.  An interesting debate in which there is respect shown on both sides, is a greater learning experience for all, as opposed to someone who refuses to see any other view point than their own.

Because you see, you really dont know who posts here, what their qualifications are and what their work involves.


----------



## Bobby (25 April 2009)

rederob said:


> .
> Most will need to wait for 2 year before being eligible for social security benefits: They receive no more nor less than Australian-born attracting social security benefits.
> 
> 
> The ignorance displayed by some here about the plight and motives of refugees is symptomatic of xenophobic attitudes, and gains traction with those will never seek to look over the horizon.  I trust they never fall on hardship and need a helping hand.




Hello Rob ,
This is from centrelink :


Centrelink refugee servicing framework
Centrelink's framework of service delivery caters to the needs of newly arrived refugees to assist in their settlement in Australia. This ensures timely payment, assessment and referral, and ongoing support for social and economic participation.

Refugees have access to Centrelink payments and services immediately upon their arrival in Australia and are not subject to the newly arrived residence waiting period.

Guess most won't have to wait that 2 years then !!  :


----------



## rederob (25 April 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Thanks Red for putting it all in context.
> 
> How do you feel about our right to decide the future mix of Australia?
> 
> gg



We have elections, don't we?
Our governments make these decisions, and the likes of you and me toss them out if we get can the numbers.
The issue, as I see it, is that we are now in a "global" environment and need to accept our reasonable share of responsibilities.
As a nation we are far better off for accepting post-WW2 refugees from Europe and, later, boat people from Asia.  The "locals" were no different in their views then as they are today.
If we were half smart we would have a policy of interdiction in place so that known asylum seekers would arrive in Australia with at least some of their possessions, rather than have lost everything to people smugglers, and then lost their lives.


----------



## So_Cynical (25 April 2009)

Some posters here really need to get a grip. 

Re: Flood of migrants overwhelm Australia's borders

http://www.refugeecouncil.org.au/arp/stats-02.html

From 1997 to 2008 there were 13337 unauthorised arrival's by boat...1212 unauthorised 
arrival's per year could only be called a flood by people that are delusional.


----------



## rederob (25 April 2009)

Bobby said:


> Hello Rob ,
> This is from centrelink :
> Refugees have access to Centrelink payments and services immediately upon their arrival in Australia and are not subject to the newly arrived residence waiting period.
> Guess most won't have to wait that 2 years then !!  :



I am sure my point referenced "migrants", and made no mention of the special arrangements for *refugees*.
Now that you have discovered the social security entitlements for this group, you may care to correct the following: 


Bobby said:


> Was listening to the radio when this was said ~ our govt pays a refugee & spouse over $400 each plus a hardship allowance on top of that per week , works out to be around $56,000 P/A


----------



## Prospector (25 April 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Some posters here really need to get a grip.
> 
> From 1997 to 2008 there were 13337 unauthorised arrival's by boat...1212 unauthorised
> arrival's per year could only be called a flood by people that are delusional.




Yup, as on page 1 here where I mentioned that less than 5% of illegal immigrants arrived by boat.  96% arrive by plane!  The media seem to prefer hacking in to the boat people though.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 April 2009)

rederob said:


> Two thirds of migrants are, on arrival, aged between 25 and 45, and are relatively evenly divided on gender.
> In recent years, most are arriving with valuable skills, have a lower unemployment rate and occupy white collar/professional occupations at a rate higher than Australian born.
> Most will need to wait for 2 year before being eligible for social security benefits: They receive no more nor less than Australian-born attracting social security benefits.
> New Zealanders arrive in Australia at twice our intake of "humanitarian" refugees (averaging just over 15,000pa over the past 20 years).
> ...




It sounds as if most of these poor buggers are better possible migrants than the old grannies on Border Security bringing in suitcases full of live chooks and salamis and noodles.

gg


----------



## Largesse (25 April 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Some posters here really need to get a grip.
> 
> Re: Flood of migrants overwhelm Australia's borders
> 
> ...




mate you need to frame you argument properly as there are two clearly different sets of data within your set, between 1997-2002 and 2002-2008.

HAVE A GUESS WHY THERE WAS A SHARP DROP OFF AFTER 2002?

If we get back to 1997-2003 levels then that IS a flood.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 April 2009)

Largesse said:


> mate you need to frame you argument properly as there are two clearly different sets of data within your set, between 1997-2002 and 2002-2008.
> 
> HAVE A GUESS WHY THERE WAS A SHARP DROP OFF AFTER 2002?
> 
> If we get back to 1997-2003 levels then that IS a flood.




This worries folk in Northern Australia.

I can remember a refugee boat coming in just North of Cairns during those years.

gg


----------



## Bobby (25 April 2009)

rederob said:


> I am sure my point referenced "migrants", and made no mention of the special arrangements for *refugees*.
> Now that you have discovered the social security entitlements for this group, you may care to correct the following:




Yes you did reference " migrants "   ( Food of migrants overwhelm Australia's borders )  
Why would I need to correct the second part ?  what I said was stated  , therefore a factual statement  
Do you think the figures are wrong  ?


----------



## So_Cynical (25 April 2009)

Largesse said:


> mate you need to frame you argument properly as there are two clearly different sets of data within your set, between 1997-2002 and 2002-2008.
> 
> HAVE A GUESS WHY THERE WAS A SHARP DROP OFF AFTER 2002?
> 
> If we get back to 1997-2003 levels then that IS a flood.




We clearly have different opinions as to what constitutes a flood.

13337 unauthorised arrival's over 11 years is a non event...triple it 
and its still a non event.


----------



## rederob (25 April 2009)

Bobby said:


> Why would I need to correct the second part ?  what I said was stated  , therefore a factual statement
> Do you think the figures are wrong  ?



The partnered rate for people unemployed is $409 per week, or a bit over $20k for a couple, over 12 months.
Unless you misheard, I think your *statement *was a deliberate (and mischievous) lie or simply incorrect; and that's a fact


----------



## Largesse (25 April 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> We clearly have different opinions as to what constitutes a flood.
> 
> 13337 unauthorised arrival's over 11 years is a non event...triple it
> and its still a non event.





Y1:   1212 x 20000pa   = $24 249 090
Y2: 2(1212 x 20000pa) = $48 498 181
Y3: 3(1212 x 20000pa) = ....
Y4: 4(1212 x 20000pa) = ....
Y5: 5(1212 x 20000pa) = ....
Y6: 6(1212 x 20000pa) = ....
Y7: 7(1212 x 20000pa) = ....
Y8: 8(1212 x 20000pa) = ....
Y9: 9(1212 x 20000pa) =  ....
Y10: 10(1212 x 20000pa) = $242 400 000

Welfare isn't cheap.



Also consider for a second how many countries these people could happily stop off in on their way from Afghanistan/Iran/India/wherever to get to here. Ask yourself why they don't stop and escape their persecution in any of those countries?

Because they don't get big fat tasty hand outs from our over generous government


----------



## Glen48 (25 April 2009)

I know 2 people who married Asains and they both took off and DIMA is not interested it finding them and it now sounds like the ATO is funding them so why get on a leaky boat when they can find a sucker here is OZ and get a free ride right to the door.


----------



## Bobby (25 April 2009)

rederob said:


> The partnered rate for people unemployed is $409 per week, or a bit over $20k for a couple, over 12 months.
> Unless you misheard, I think your *statement *was a deliberate (and mischievous) lie or simply incorrect; and that's a fact





 I'm sure the radio station I was listening to keeps recordings of whats said , like to make a wager on your presumptions Rob  ?  

:emp::emp:


----------



## Calliope (25 April 2009)

helicart said:


> I am having some fun on a week off work Call, and have been trying to profile ASF users.
> 
> I admit I wasn't taking Afghanistan seriously until a few months ago myself..hadn't appreciated the Taliban's aggression in Pakistan.......but when Hilary "let's give everyone free health care as well as free houses" the peacenik started to take it seriously, so did I....and I thought the Obamarama Australian cheer squad might take more notice of one of their own....like Hillary....
> 
> Nevertheless, I'll be scaling back on posts from now.....back to the harsh light of free markets on Monday....and the vege patch needs tending...




Your posts have been like a breath of fresh air. You have done a good job of exposing the hypocrisy of the leftists and the bleeding hearts. Like a fox in a hen house you have sent them squawking in all directions.

Stick around.


----------



## helicart (25 April 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> We clearly have different opinions as to what constitutes a flood.
> 
> 13337 unauthorised arrival's over 11 years is a non event...triple it
> and its still a non event.




Hey why have border security at all hey SC......a waste of money if it's just a few thousand coming in......gee even if they are terrorists or Taliban extremists, 'no worries mate....have a xxxx. and centrelink's just over there ......fancy a cuppa?'

OTOH, what's the cost per boat person to maintain border security.....

And who are you to say that Rudd's policy won't lead to an exponential increase in boaties, once word gets back home....

I mean, your argument is a discrete little cocooned package paternally declaring we shouldn't worry our poor little heads about what happens in the future.....we should deal with it when it happens....as it is so far fetched to be totally implausible by our smug, elite, better educated, and privileged keepers.......oh I feel so much better when I have them looking after me.....now what revisions has Rudd made to Labor policy this week? oh yes, let's chop defence spending by 15b.....then let's spend 100b....and what was the new threat this week that he didn't know about last week? 

And how many years was that that unskilled migrants whether asylum seekers or whatever needed before they were tax revenue positive? Bonds just laid off a lot of them didn't it as have xx no. of manufacturers since the Hawke Keating tariff reductions....

Anyway, I don't think anyone is arguing against migrants coming to Australia, we just want to have the highest probability migrants make a net positive contribution to the security and 'common wealth' of the nation.....I work with some very smart Vietnamese 2nd generation Aussies. and they are great....but that doesn't mean Australia should do as you imply and just get down to the beach with our surfboards, and welcome any boat pointed in our general direction....

If this thread has gone down hill it is because guys like you can't discern shades of grey.....just like Rudd....who is now flip flopping his policies....ETS, border security, military spending, etc etc etc......

Anyway SC, get your slide rule out and calculate how many unskilled refugees Australia can absorb per annum, without public services and the current std of living being compromised.  And give us some insight into how many jobs you have personally created in your life time.... 

While you are at it, let us know where your parents are going to retire, whether they'll be self funded, and how you expect unskilled asylum seekers to ever get off welfare and buy a house in a nation with one of the most expensive median house prices in the world. If you aren't a business owner who creates jobs, imho, you don't have as big a right as you are loud hailing all over the thread.

Thankyou.....and good night....


----------



## rederob (25 April 2009)

helicart said:


> And how many years was that that unskilled migrants whether asylum seekers or whatever needed before they were tax revenue positive? Bonds just laid off a lot of them didn't it as have xx no. of manufacturers since the Hawke Keating tariff reductions....



Excluding those on pensions, in bulk terms net overseas intakes are tax (burden) revenue positive on an annual basis.
Long term unemployed (Australian born) will continue to be a significantly greater burden on the public purse than refugees or any other category of overseas born.


----------



## Julia (25 April 2009)

Bobby said:


> Hello Snake ,
> Was listening to the radio when this was said ~ our govt pays a refugee & spouse over $400 each plus a hardship allowance on top of that per week , works out to be around $56,000 P/A
> 
> No wonder the poor old Aussie pensioner can't get an extra $30 !!




The above is quite untrue.  It's an email that has been doing the rounds for months now.   I also heard it some months ago on the radio - probably the same bunch of people who are repeatedly ringing the talk shows.  The ABC producer concerned checked, and soon after it was broadcast that it's entirely without foundation.  Very mischievous rumour mongering.
And btw, before someone accuses me of being a left wing bleeding heart, just desist, thank you.   I am merely correcting the record rather than allow unsubstantiated assertions to continue.

http://www.asrc.org.au/act_now/centrelink_myth.html


----------



## beamstas (25 April 2009)

I could fix this problem

Just get me one of these







And one of these






I will take care of the rest 

Brad


----------



## MrBurns (25 April 2009)

The only thing we should be concerned about is Indonesia, Australia is vastly underpopulated and Brad ?.....grow up, we dont actually live in a Bond movie.


----------



## Bobby (25 April 2009)

Julia said:


> I also heard it some months ago on the radio - .




Well Julia it was said on ( Super Radio Network ) again last Friday  .

Paying attention Rob , wish you had taken me up on the wager  ..
Not happy with what you said  .


----------



## Julia (25 April 2009)

Bobby said:


> Well Julia it was said on ( Super Radio Network ) again last Friday  .
> 
> .



Saying it doesn't make it so.   Check Immigration Dept website or Centrelink if you're not satisfied with the link I offered.
Regards
Julia


----------



## Bobby (25 April 2009)

Julia said:


> Saying it doesn't make it so.   Check Immigration Dept website or Centrelink if you're not satisfied with the link I offered.
> Regards
> Julia




Pay attention to what I said in the first place please .  

_Was listening to the radio when this was said ~_


----------



## Julia (25 April 2009)

Bobby, this is what you said in the first place:



> Was listening to the radio when this was said ~ our govt pays a refugee & spouse over $400 each plus a hardship allowance on top of that per week , works out to be around $56,000 P/A
> 
> No wonder the poor old Aussie pensioner can't get an extra $30 !!




It seems clear from this post that you accepted what was said on the radio as being true.

I have offered to you the fact that it is simply not true.  I have provided a link demonstrating this.  You can further check, as I suggested, on Immigration or Centrelink websites.

What is the dispute?   Do you still think refugee and spouse receive over $400 each per week?  If so, I give up.


----------



## weird (25 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> The only thing we should be concerned about is Indonesia, Australia is vastly underpopulated and Brad ?.....grow up, we dont actually live in a Bond movie.




I have some close ties with Indonesia, worked there for over a year , and have family there ... I think the boat loads of illegal immigrants is a concern, but overall the country isn't.

Concerning refugees, my wife attended a refugee bbq on Friday, Major financial company, work organised and a Christian non-denominational NGO, and the stories I have heard from her one day experience with Sudan refugees and children, are better than any Walt Disney story ... both her and I are richer for it.


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> The only thing we should be concerned about is Indonesia





Dad and I were just discussing his time as a `chocko` and his dads WW2 service and we got onto the subject of Indonesia.  So what do you see as a real problem? Overpopulation, economic hardships, government rulings???


----------



## MrBurns (25 April 2009)

It's gravity, 200m people crammed in right next to a country that has more empty space tnan Rudd and Swans heads combined.


----------



## Bobby (25 April 2009)

Julia said:


> Bobby, this is what you said in the first place:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Gee I'll try again to to get this clarified , You say it seems clear I accepted the radio story , I say thats what was on the radio & I posted it .
Now what I didn't say was I believe it , nor the opposite .
Its your conception of what I think , you don't know this but presume so , Julia its not like you to be so tunnel visioned


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> It's gravity, 200m people crammed in right next to *a country that has more empty space tnan Rudd and Swans heads combined*.






MrBurns said:


> and Brad ?.....grow up, we dont actually live in a Bond movie.




Vacant space ... maybe make another territory called The Northwestern Territory.


----------



## weird (25 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> It's gravity, 200m people crammed in right next to a country that has more empty space tnan Rudd and Swans heads combined.




As I said earlier, I have lived there for 1 year and speak Bahasa, actually will be going back in November for 2 weeks, which is a regular thing, so have a bit of experience with the country.

"Crammed in there", is very different to how Westerners view life in general, Indonesia is very communal, you will have generations living under the same roof very happily, its not the same as expected in Anglo society ... that is, if you are a bread winner now, fend for yourself , go out and expand ... it's more like you are bread winner now, still part of the family, and can stay under the roof, why do you need to move. 

It is a very communal society. I should know, living in Jakarta , and as a Westerner, even though quite young at the time, some of my most obnoxious actions, got reported back across major kilometers in one of the most largest cities, that is Jakarta, before I got home. It is an amazing country, and very different to Australia.


----------



## MrBurns (25 April 2009)

weird said:


> It is an amazing country, and very different to Australia.




A lot like Springvale no doubt.


----------



## weird (25 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> A lot like Springvale no doubt.




Respect your posts Mr Burn, and like a laugh ... don't quite get the post. Enlighten me.


----------



## MrBurns (25 April 2009)

weird said:


> Respect your posts Mr Burn, and like a laugh ... don't quite get the post. Enlighten me.




Springvale... a suburb of Melbourne where you cant get anything to eat if your only language is English, I think they may rename it to Saigon


----------



## weird (26 April 2009)

lol, thanks to being part of British Empire, I will get spanked by saying that.

Diversify is good, I think everyone gets a bit annoyed when seeing overseas groups cling together when traveling or migrating ... why not embrace the local culture ... in Sydney city, people avoid eye contact in the city, so not so easy, but it is normal 'birds of a feather, flock together' ... however complete migration usually occurs over time, okay, another statement, which may get me smacked again, is on trains or buses in our 'new country' you will hear 'aussie accents' and watch the people leave, and not be anglo.

Also when Aussies go overseas they will cling to whatever is the safest, but slowly confidence will build, and I think Aussies are perhaps better at this than most countries, as I have read reports that Aussie managers international adapt better than most. 

Children are a sponge ... more integration will occur with this group ... some people are upset with any societal integration ... wishing to unlearn anything, as they are angry with society in general ... however most people agree there is something worth learning as being a member of society.


----------



## long88 (26 April 2009)

Mr burns: most of the people in springvale can speak english, i think the problem here is they probably discrimate against you as they dont expect to serve a caucasian (or any of the other colour race for that matter), as you might expect food/service that you expected to be served on any other restaurant (non asian), and got offered something different (taste, size, etc) and you dont want to pay for it, and those vendor having have to deal with this all the time, choose not to do business with you if you are having that attitude (Refund problem as well).

that is my 2 cents anyway, but i do see caucasian on a couple of springvale restaurant, and they seems to be enjoying the food.

Just to note here, i am migrant as well (indonesian), and only speak english here in melbourne. 

And this is not a racist post. Just some thought.




MrBurns said:


> Springvale... a suburb of Melbourne where you cant get anything to eat if your only language is English, I think they may rename it to Saigon


----------



## MrBurns (26 April 2009)

We used to be worried about the Italians and the Greeks but now they are brothers albeit we still call then dagos HA we love new cultires as long as they dont obliterate our own.


----------



## MrBurns (26 April 2009)

long88 said:


> Mr burns: most of the people in springvale can speak english, i think the problem here is they probably discrimate against you as they dont expect to serve a caucasian (or any of the other colour race for that matter), as you might expect food/service that you expected to be served on any other restaurant (non asian), and got offered something different (taste, size, etc) and you dont want to pay for it, and those vendor having have to deal with this all the time, choose not to do business with you if you are having that attitude (Refund problem as well).
> 
> that is my 2 cents anyway, but i do see caucasian on a couple of springvale restaurant, and they seems to be enjoying the food.
> 
> ...




Please dont get me wrong, I love the Asian culture I realy love their contribution to Australia but I dont feel all that comfortable in Victoria St Richmond.


----------



## weird (26 April 2009)

WTF, mods close the thread.


----------



## Wysiwyg (26 April 2009)

Yeah the Chinese couple that run the 7 Eleven store know how to treat customers by greeting them with a polite hello and smile.
Not like those multi pierced/multi dyed negs with the sour look that think the world owes them a living.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (26 April 2009)

Julia said:


> Saying it doesn't make it so.   Check Immigration Dept website or Centrelink if you're not satisfied with the link I offered.
> Regards
> Julia



Julia don't they make more than the retirees?

Bobby thanks for your attention to my comments.
Snake


----------



## Bobby (26 April 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Julia don't they make more than the retirees?
> 
> Bobby thanks for your attention to my comments.
> Snake




Pleasure Snake , nice to know a realist , some here are peptic woos-es  
  Not you Julia ..


----------



## rederob (26 April 2009)

Bobby said:


> Why would I need to correct the second part ?  what I said was stated  , therefore a *factual statement  *
> Do you think the figures are wrong  ?



Proven conclusively to be a *lie*.
You were given the opportunity to provide a correction to the radio segment, and did what? 
Indulge in a churlish posting war.


----------



## xyzedarteerf (26 April 2009)

helicart said:


> you prefer to cut down tall poppies so they are the same height huh?
> Marx thought the same....
> 
> unlike me, who has post grad quals in health, and am successfully self employed in the field, maybe I do have all the answers about diet.....but as you say, this is a share forum......
> ...




RAAWR


​


----------



## gresim25 (26 April 2009)

Bafana said:


> My feelings exactly.




I wish more people would embrace this mentality  I totally agree


----------



## gresim25 (26 April 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> Talk about a non event.
> 
> Personally I am for open borders but at minimum, these people struggle valiantly to be here, pity we don't welcome them with open arms.  Seems odd to spend billions on getting ready to shoot people, when we could spend billions on helping people.
> 
> Hell we're ALL boat people, even the indigenous Australians, the only difference is the time frame.




whoops I meant to concur with this statement


----------



## Bobby (26 April 2009)

rederob said:


> Proven conclusively to be a *lie*.
> You were given the opportunity to provide a correction to the radio segment, and did what?
> Indulge in a churlish posting war.




What  lie ?  
Be very careful of posting personal attacks    :cwm10:


----------



## rederob (26 April 2009)

Bobby
A comprehension lesson for you:
You posted. "Was listening to the radio when this was said...."
The statement you allegedly heard on the radio was shown to be wrong/incorrect/without foundation - perhaps a deliberate lie.
You subsequently went on to say, "Why would I need to correct the second part ? what I said was stated , therefore a factual statement".
What was allegedly said on radio may indeed be as you stated.
However, a *factual statement *would need to be a credible statement based on the facts.

It is poor form to continue to tout what are proven to be lies as "factual statements", especially when you were given the opportunity to provide the correct rates for the given situation.

Less obvious "lies" (by inference) exist within the title of the thread, and many of the gung ho posts that give it life.  For example, migration is controlled tightly, and there really is no flood. On the other hand, illegal immigrants are a different issue, and border protection is presently topical.
Within posts there are many inferences that go unchallenged, and readers will often assume a fact when none exists.  Here's a classic example; "Julia don't they make more than the retirees?"  The inference is that refugees get more than retirees.  The fact is that a refugee will attract a social security benefit at exactly the same rate as any other eligible beneficiary warranting that entitlement.

If after reading this you are still having difficulties I will be more than happy to suggest some reference material that improves comprehension.


----------



## disarray (26 April 2009)

rederob said:


> Two thirds of migrants are, on arrival, aged between 25 and 45, and are relatively evenly divided on gender.
> In recent years, most are arriving with valuable skills, have a lower unemployment rate and occupy white collar/professional occupations at a rate higher than Australian born.




because official migration policies emphasise skilled migration. 



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> However, as years pass their unemployment rate nears that of the average rate, despite a large proportion of this population having minimal or no education at time of entry.




this is incorrect. there are many concentrations of welfare dependents amongst various ethnic enclaves. bankstown, fairfield, springvale - all with high concentrations of ethnic minorities and higher than average rates of long term welfare dependence.

the most common line is "white australians use more welfare, commit more crime etc. etc." however this totally fails to take into account the size of the white population compared to other racial groups.

the simple fact is ethnic minorities such as lebanese, sudanese, vietnamese, aborigines and various others are overrepresented in crime rates and welfare dependence compared to white australians. sometimes these levels of overrepresentation are HUGE and any day spent at sydney local court will see endless streams of ethnic minorities fronting up to the magistrate, far out of proportion to their overall population percentage.



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> The ignorance displayed by some here about the plight and motives of refugees is symptomatic of xenophobic attitudes, and gains traction with those will never seek to look over the horizon.  I trust they never fall on hardship and need a helping hand.




the nievity regarding the motives and attitudes of many migrants to australia is symptomatic of a blinkered view of humanity and a case of idealism clouding common sense. the australian welfare state is considered a cash cow by many migrants who have little or no interest in contributing to the society and are content to sit back and receive government handouts.

this is also borne out by overseas experience with muslim immigrants in france, sweden, england, the netherlands etc. being responsible for huge surges in the crime rate and massive levels of welfare dependence, and basically having no intention whatsoever to integrate or contribute to wider society.

of course there are some migrants who do want to make a go of it, however where do we draw the line bringing in the good with the bad? out of the 130,000 migrants we bring in each year, how many leeches and criminals and potential terrorists are we willing to tolerate? and this is only official migration, to say nothing of people smuggling and other unofficial movements of people into our borders.

what population do we want to stabilise this country at? where will we finally say "enough, the country is full, the cities are strained, infrastructure is collapsing, the water is running out and we need to time to stabilise and take stock of what kind of society we want going into the future"?

endless growth is madness and will lead to unrest and erosion of our quality of life. bringing in large numbers of people, many from unstable countries and who have proven to be drains of society in regards to crime rates and welfare dependence, is simply not good for the long term health of country, both socially and economically. we need to be very very selective with the quality and background of migrants we choose to take in, especially given the abject failures we've experienced with the lebanese in sydney and sudanese in melbourne.

calls of xenophobia and racism are nothing more than attempts to silence any open debate by selfish individuals who choose to wallow in their cultural guilt and seek to expunge their misguided shame by pushing deluded and nieve social rainbow fantasies onto the rest of society.


----------



## rederob (26 April 2009)

disarray said:


> this is incorrect.



My data were from official labour force series, and were indeed correct for *all *overseas born. I am aware of many suburbs across Australia with high levels of welfare dependence, and with ethnic enclaves.  
Unfortunately you are confusing the "real" big picture with what you see from small concentrations.
With respect to criminality, the highest rates relate to people with the lowest levels of education, and holds true across all ethnic groups, and in most other nations where we have reliable data.
Despite a wide range of data that show migration has long term benefits to our nation there remain people who will continue to lie about the facts and distort them to their own pathetic ends.
My mother was a refugee, my sister will never know her father and, as my mother will never tell us what she went through to get to Australia, I suspect that even she does not know to this day. 
A fundamental difference between me and *disarray *is that I seldom comment about things I don't know about.  I find many of *disarray's * so out of whack with reality that they deserve no further comment.


----------



## Bobby (26 April 2009)

Rob ,
This is almost getting amusing trying to communicate the meaning of what I said but I'll try again .
The term factual statement refereed to the *Fact that what was said on the radio actually occurred it happened * 

Here you go  27 definitions of factual statement : http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=factual+statement
A comprehension lesson for you !  Smile for me


----------



## helicart (26 April 2009)

rederob said:


> With respect to criminality, the highest rates relate to people with the lowest levels of education, and holds true across all ethnic groups, and in most other nations where we have reliable data.
> Despite a wide range of data that show migration has long term benefits to our nation there remain people who will continue to lie about the facts and distort them to their own pathetic ends.




Let's see your graphs Chairman Red...







And if you want to justify that crime rates are high amongst ALL groups of low education, all the more reason for Australia to ensure migrants are not overly represented by the undereducated....


----------



## rederob (26 April 2009)

helicart said:


> And if you want to justify that crime rates are high amongst ALL groups of low education, all the more reason for Australia to ensure migrants are not overly represented by the undereducated....



Try charting "white collar" crime, or the misrepresentations perpetrated on a regular basis by company directors that have led shareholders to lose billions of dollars in the past few years.
On a dollar for dollar basis the best educated are responsible for the greatest financial loss.
The simple fact is that the poorest educated are the least likely to find employment and are more likely to commit crimes on a regular basis and land in jail.  The data prove this conclusively.  Drug trafficking and organised crime will often draw in the "poor" and find them prosecuted, while the ringleaders buy themselves protection.


----------



## rederob (26 April 2009)

Bobby
I know what you intended and understand the point you are making.
What you had a chance to say was that it is a fact that radio stations are repeating false claims about how much refugees get from Centrelink.
That is a factual statement.


----------



## helicart (26 April 2009)

rederob said:


> Try charting "white collar" crime, or the misrepresentations perpetrated on a regular basis by company directors that have led shareholders to lose billions of dollars in the past few years.
> On a dollar for dollar basis the best educated are responsible for the greatest financial loss.
> The simple fact is that the poorest educated are the least likely to find employment and are more likely to commit crimes on a regular basis and land in jail.  The data prove this conclusively.  Drug trafficking and organised crime will often draw in the "poor" and find them prosecuted, while the ringleaders buy themselves protection.





How about all crime Chairman......








You've just given good reason for Australia not to accept asylum seekers undereducated in the ways of democracy, free markets, and the rule of law under a Westminster politicolegal system....


----------



## stockGURU (26 April 2009)

helicart said:


>




What statistics are this graph based upon and why does it end 11 years ago?


----------



## ColB (26 April 2009)

> Originally posted by *StockGuru*
> 
> "What statistics are this graph based upon..."




Uh 'Guru', You there?  The graph has a heading.  It states All Crimes presumably in Australia because I don't know why helicart would post stats from another country .  What more do you want the graph to say, name every crime in the Crimes Act!!

Would be nice to see something a little more current but these stats are not always easy to find.  I'm tipping the representation would be very similar today with the middle eastern cultures still right up the top especially organised crime involving drugs, rebirthing of cars, credit card/identity fraud etc.


----------



## stockGURU (26 April 2009)

ColB said:


> Uh 'Guru', You there?  The graph has a heading.  It states All Crimes presumably in Australia because I don't know why helicart would post stats from another country .  What more do you want the graph to say, name every crime in the Crimes Act!!




I would like to know the *source* of the statistics, or do you just believe any graph that is posted on the internet? For all I know someone could have made it up. I could make a similar graph in Photoshop in about 10 minutes.


----------



## rederob (26 April 2009)

ColB said:


> Would be nice to see something a little more current but these stats are not always easy to find.  I'm tipping the representation would be very similar today with the middle eastern cultures still right up the top especially organised crime involving drugs, rebirthing of cars, credit card/identity fraud etc.



The reason more recent data is not found is because it does not exist!
Only Victoria publishes country of birth data for offenders.  WA uses a "looks like" identification process and classifies offenders on appearance into 10 groups.
Australian born rank very high in the crime statistics - 10th out of the 26 countries listed.
That aside, here are the "facts" in relation to migrants:
1. The crime rate of foreign-born population is lower than that of the native-born
2. The arrest rate of immigrant groups varies widely and also differs from arrest rate in their country of origin
3. The crime rate of second generation of migrants is higher than that of their
parents’ generation and this rate approximates the crime rates of the native-born population
4. Members of the foreign-born population are victims of crime more often than members of the native-born population, and
5. Some foreign-born groups are involved in organised crime.


----------



## ColB (26 April 2009)

> Originally posted by StockGuru
> 
> I would like to know the source of the statistics, or do you just believe any graph that is posted on the internet? For all I know someone could have made it up. I could make a similar graph in Photoshop in about 10 minutes.




You actually asked what the statistics were based on not for the source but you'll find it below anyway.

I haven't checked if Helicart owns the web page below Stockguru but I'm tipping he wouldn't bother going to the trouble you suggest.  

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=991&page=0


----------



## helicart (26 April 2009)

Like ColB says, the govt and all its agencies have a policy of suppressing ethnicity in crime reporting stats....they obviously think the general public "can't handle the truth" and that public servants are right to treat the public like an innocent young flight stewardess on an Air Force plane. 

It is difficult to get up to date figures.....and I am still waiting to see the figures propping up Chairman Red pomposity...

Unfortunately, concealing the truth ALWAYS makes things worse....the public can't be snowed forever.....and this same elitist BS is now being played by Rudd et al in relation to boat people.

And almost every week he has to do a policy backflip......reconciliation, computer for every child, scrap work choices, ETS, pension cuts, economic stimulus vs infrastructure spending, border security cuts, military spending cuts....it just goes on and on like a slow motion train wreck.....one thing after another introduced, then backpeddled....

The charts' sources are in their properties....I have no reason to conceal anything.....unlike Chairman Red who still hasn't managed to find the data he bases his righteous indignation and slandering of other forumites on....


----------



## ColB (26 April 2009)

> Originally posted by Rederob
> 
> The reason more recent data is not found is because it does not exist!
> Only Victoria publishes country of birth data for offenders. WA uses a "looks like" identification process and classifies offenders on appearance into 10 groups.
> ...




Red, I don't doubt the authenticity of your post above but we all need to provide a source URL when we post data that is not merely our opinion.  

I can tell you having spent several years in an intelligence environment the incidence of middle eastern persons (Lebanese in particular) involved in organised crime such as vehicle re-birthing, drug crimes, and identity fraud to name a few far outweighed the incidence of Australian involvement in similar crimes.


----------



## stockGURU (26 April 2009)

ColB said:


> You actually asked what the statistics were based on not for the source but you'll find it below anyway.
> 
> I haven't checked if Helicart owns the web page below Stockguru but I'm tipping he wouldn't bother going to the trouble you suggest.
> 
> http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=991&page=0






> Dr Dick Crane is a General Surgeon, Endoscopist and Medico-Legal Consultant based in Sydney & Penrith. He has a background of service in the Army in Vietnam *and is a frequent contributor to "letters to the editor" pages on such subjects as immigration, crime, heroin trials, Aboriginal health, tobacco*. On the subject of his research into Youth Suicide, Medicare & Psychology, he recently contributed to a major piece on the Insight page of The Sydney Morning Herald about mental health and had a letter published in the SMH.






Sorry if the research of someone whose claim to fame is that he is a frequent "Letters to the Editor" contributor does not impress me.



> To enable a logical analysis of the asset/liability of immigrants from various countries, *I have derived an indicator called the Criminal Representation Ratio (CRR)*. Using population and prison figures provided by the AIC and the ABS, the number of prisoners born in Australia per 100,000 adult population is obtained and given a CRR of one. Similar figures are then obtained for prisoners born in a number of representative countries for the Australian immigration program and compared with the Australian-born figures and given a CRR related to the Australian figure. A CRR greater than one indicates a crime involvement rate higher than that of Australian-born criminals.




He basically says that he invented his own indicator based on criteria of his own choosing. What are this guys qualifications again? 

Additionally, there is no explanation of what the figures on the y axis mean.

This is not scientific research.


----------



## rederob (26 April 2009)

helicart said:


> The charts' sources are in their properties....I have no reason to conceal anything.....unlike Chairman Red who still hasn't managed to find the data he bases his righteous indignation and slandering of other forumites on....



I provide links from time to time.  Your challenge is to falsify my claims, which should be rather easy given your cockiness.
I admit to having difficulty charting criminality by ethnicity in Australia when the data are buried in protected archival records for most States and Territories.


----------



## Bobby (26 April 2009)

rederob said:


> Bobby
> I know what you intended and understand the point you are making.
> What you had a chance to say was that it is a fact that radio stations are repeating false claims about how much refugees get from Centrelink.
> That is a factual statement.




Still can't leave it alone Hey  :whip  like playing the inquisitor do you   

Back to the topic , how many boats loads of illegal immigrants would you say  enough is enough  e.g.  50 , 100 , 1000  ?  
You can call them refugees if you like  ..


----------



## Julia (26 April 2009)

rederob said:


> ..... and readers will often assume a fact when none exists.  Here's a classic example; "Julia don't they make more than the retirees?"  The inference is that refugees get more than retirees.  The fact is that a refugee will attract a social security benefit at exactly the same rate as any other eligible beneficiary warranting that entitlement.



I chose not to respond to this because I was unwilling to become engaged in yet another silly exchange.
Endorse Rederob's info as above.
Anyone genuinely wanting to know this can find all the information on the Centrelink website.


----------



## Julia (26 April 2009)

disarray said:


> what population do we want to stabilise this country at? where will we finally say "enough, the country is full, the cities are strained, infrastructure is collapsing, the water is running out and we need to time to stabilise and take stock of what kind of society we want going into the future"?




I can't speak for other cities, but many Brisbane residents would say we have reached this stage already.  Water infrastructure is questionable, restrictions seemingly permanent, health system is choked to disaster point, traffic congestion is unbearable and unemployment is rising.

Quite apart from the question of the social assimilation, the simple physical difficulties above need to be considered.


----------



## ColB (26 April 2009)

> Originally posted by *StockGuru*
> 
> "Sorry if the research of someone whose claim to fame is that he is a frequent "Letters to the Editor" contributor does not impress me."




Guru, Dr Dick Crane's 'claim to fame' merely a frequent "Letters to the Editor" contributor doesn't impress you.  You've already highlighted he's a *General Surgeon, Endoscopist and Medico-Legal Consultant* hardly the sort of qualifications any of these boat people are bringing to Australia.  You've already decided on goodness knows what basis that his article is flawed because "there is no explanation of what the figures on the y axis mean."
Did you read that his statistical analysis was based on figures provided by Australian Institute of Criminology (AIC) and the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) for the years 1991-1998. His views are obviously too right wing for you.

Have a read of the whole article [http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=991&page=0] and see if you can find some reputable data that contradicts Dr Crane's findings and then perhaps you might go some small way to proving your own research capability.  Granted, that there will always be some articles that are biased (Pro-Immigration/Anti-Immigration) and we need to be aware of that but on the basis of my experience I have little reason to doubt Crane's findings.

I am not anti immigration.  Like helicart and Dissaray point out there are genuine reasons why we need to be very careful as to who we let in and how many. 

Regards CB


----------



## rederob (26 April 2009)

ColB
AIC publications are typically my source as they integrate State-by-State data.
helicart's posted charts have dubious integrity in that only one State publishes criminality by country of birth.  Aside from that, the statistical error in extracting criminality/ethnicity from other available data series is so high as to render any conclusions meaningless.
By the way, most crimes are not reported, and of those that are, an overwhelming majority do not lead to a conviction (because nobody was charged in the first place).


----------



## disarray (26 April 2009)

rederob said:


> I provide links from time to time.




actually you have rarely, if ever, provided any sort of links or supporting evidence for your frequently innacurate claims. you spout your opinion as if it were fact then have the gall to demand everyone provide evidence for their own points of view. what is even more remarkable is when you are confronted with facts and statistics that disagree with your opinion you immediately challenge the data and discredit it based on whatever basis you can dream up.

it is very difficult to take you seriously, not only because of your hypocrisy and your bigotry but because of your self-supposed moral and intellectual superiority which is thoroughly undeserved. i am afraid you are the one failing to see the big picture and given your refugee background it is obvious you are extremely biased on this issue and are unwilling to consider any opinion other than your own, wrong as it is. you just keep toeing the party line, keep your hands over your ears, shout lalalala and everything will be ok.


----------



## nunthewiser (26 April 2009)

disarray said:


> keep your hands over your ears, shout lalalala and everything will be ok.





LOL i like that . u mind i borrow this for the house price rise thread ?


----------



## disarray (26 April 2009)

knock yourself out


----------



## helicart (26 April 2009)

Chairman Red, how about a link for points 1-5. 





Julia said:


> I chose not to respond to this because I was unwilling to become engaged in yet another silly exchange.
> Endorse Rederob's info as above.
> Anyone genuinely wanting to know this can find all the information on the Centrelink website.




as well as the centerlink website, you better include the tax revenue that is required for 
- fighting crime by 1st and 2nd generation migrants above the level of crime committed by non migrants.
- border security
- running burns units in multiple hospitals.....the cost of this would blow some of you away...
- running detention centres and repairing damage done by the detained.
- medical treatment for self inflicted wounds by detainees.
- govt funded ethnic media
- govt funded ethnic integration programs
- centrelink overhead for non english speaking people and distressed migrants.
- govt housing for migrants
- cost of providing separate muslim prayer rooms in hospitals
- time and revenue cost of govt liaizing with neighbour countries to stop flow of boaties and other illegals into Australia
- aid given to Indonesia and Malaysia to stem flow of illegals to Australia.

Gees, far cry from what Anglos got when they came out here in the 1800s.


----------



## nunthewiser (26 April 2009)

some vaild points there chairman tall poppy


----------



## helicart (26 April 2009)

rederob said:


> By the way, most crimes are not reported, and of those that are, an overwhelming majority do not lead to a conviction (because nobody was charged in the first place).




So true....and inter-ethnic crime in particular goes unreported because the innocents are too scared of the stand over tactics used (Telopea St Boys).....and don't have faith in the police who have a reputation for not taking ethnic crime victims seriously (assaults against Indian taxi drivers in Melbourne) nor ethnic criminals due to loonie leftie legalese like Racial Vilification Act which makes it harder to prosecute....

And why don't your points above about statistical variance equally apply to your views Chairman Red?

And Chairman Red, seeing you think migrants and asylum seekers carte blanche are kosher, your views must apply equally to England, Netherlands, France, and Germany......now let's see you argue they don't have crime issues with migrants....


----------



## rederob (26 April 2009)

disarray said:


> actually you have rarely, if ever, provided any sort of links or supporting evidence for your frequently innacurate claims.



If you are going to claim something I have posted is incorrect, as you did earlier, you have the equal opportunity to do so.
You could have cited from here:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3415.02008?OpenDocument
But these data substantiate my points, so perhaps you ran into trouble!

helicart, I suggest you read Dr Mukherjee definive works in these areas.  I summarised the odd 100 pages of his seminal work on this topic to make it easy for you and a few other to understand.


----------



## disarray (27 April 2009)

actually the data doesn't substantiate your points. according to the data, of the 932,000 odd born overseas in a non english speaking country, around 176,000 claim government benefits as their primary source of income. thats 18% or so of migrants welfare dependent at a time when everyone was going on about a labour shortage.

compare to 430,000 migrants from english speaking nations only around 40,000 claim government benefits as primary income source. around 9%. so according to the ABS figures you pointed me to, migrants from non english speaking countries are twice as likely to rely on welfare as a primary source of income. it would be interesting to break it down further by race and / or area to see if we can pinpoint any specific racial groupings such as vietnamese, lebanese and so on, then further tailor our immigration policies to take this into account.

oh wait, it's already been done. i know you aren't big on reading the links people give you rob, especially when they disagree with your worldview so i'll just summarise the opening line for you -



> Despite some improvement since the early 1990's, high proportions of recently-arrived migrants remain dependent on unemployment benefits. Contrary to most analysts' expectations, there is evidence that disadvantaged migrants are becoming more, rather than less, residentially concentrated.




that ABS site is a good source by the way rob, you should read it sometime.


----------



## helicart (27 April 2009)

rederob said:


> helicart, I suggest you read Dr Mukherjee definive works in these areas.  I summarised the odd 100 pages of his seminal work on this topic to make it easy for you and a few other to understand.





well it is all retrospective isn't it. you are arguing that from now, we adopt higher levels of migration and a softer approach....(because you argue migrants have a net beneficial effect.)

The European countries I mentioned above are ahead of us on that. 
I suggest you familiarize yourself with the issues they face now.
You might want to throw Denmark into the equation as well. 

Last year, England's Labor was looking at adopting John Howard's approach.

And Chairman, if you can pull your head out of all that socialist undergraduate fluff for long enough, have a crack at these


1.
NSW and Victoria are the primary destinations for migrants. If migrants were tax revenue postive and a social and economic asset in every way, why is the NSW govt the biggest economic basket case of all the states, and why is Melbourne infrastructure strained to breaking point? 


2.
Higher immigration not an economic magic bullet
My comments about this paper several years ago:_

Ross makes 2 interesting points in these articles:

"The first negative (of migration) comes because, although the immigrants have higher personal productivity than the average existing worker, adding the immigrants would cause the overall productivity of labour to fall.

Why? Because workers' productivity comes mainly from the machines (the capital) they're given to work with, and the capital equipment would now be spread more thinly between more workers. This "capital dilution" effect subtracts 0.5 percentage points (or $238 a year) from real GDP per person.

The second negative comes from an increase in the current account deficit. Immigration adds more to imports than exports, ..........The higher current account deficit requires us to borrow more from foreigners, which adds to our interest payments to them. These balance of payments effects subtract 0.7 percentage points (or $339 a year) from real GDP per person."


So, immigration is not improving Australian productivity or GDP per capita, ergo neither tax revenue per capita.

Hence, recent immigration has not generated enough wealth to upgrade  infrastructure in alignment with its demand for such......


3.
_Paid Work: Migrants in the labour force
_(if you have an update on employment rates of humanitarian migrants, I am all ears)_

"Results from a new longitudinal survey of migrants arriving in Australia3 shows that immigrants who arrived between September 1993 and August 1995* had an unemployment rate of 38% and an overall labour force participation rate of 57%**about five months after arriving*. The survey followed the family member who was assessed for migration eligibility. *About 18 months after arrival, these same migrants had an unemployment rate of 21% and a participation rate of 63%.*4

 The success with which new migrants find jobs does vary with migration category. This is a predictable outcome given that migration categories select on skills for the skilled and family concessional migrants, whereas family preferential and humanitarian migrants are not tested on skills. *Consequently, new humanitarian migrants had the highest unemployment rate (81%) among migrants who had been resident in Australia for about five months. However, this had reduced to 50% about 18 months after arrival.* Among family migrants and skilled independent migrants the unemployment rates generally had halved over the period between the two interviews. For employer-nominated migrants and business-skills migrants the unemployment rate increased fractionally, though the rate in both cases was the lowest overall (3% to 4%).4
 *Among new migrants who were not currently employed, nearly half stated that their main problem in finding work was difficulty with the English language.* A much smaller proportion (12%) considered that there were not enough jobs available. Among new migrants who had found work, 12% stated that English language difficulty had been a problem, while a quarter stated that they had no particular problem finding work."


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (27 April 2009)

rederob said:


> Less obvious "lies" (by inference) exist within the title of the thread, and many of the gung ho posts that give it life.  For example, migration is controlled tightly, and there really is no flood. On the other hand, illegal immigrants are a different issue, and border protection is presently topical.
> Within posts there are many inferences that go unchallenged, and readers will often assume a fact when none exists.  Here's a classic example; *"Julia don't they make more than the retirees?"*  The inference is that refugees get more than retirees.  The fact is that a refugee will attract a social security benefit at exactly the same rate as any other eligible beneficiary warranting that entitlement.






> Saying it doesn't make it so. Check Immigration Dept website or Centrelink if you're not satisfied with the link I offered.
> Regards
> Julia



Perhaps I should have read Julia's link instead of asking an innocent question.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (27 April 2009)

Bobby said:


> nice to know a realist



Thanks Bob.


----------



## rederob (27 April 2009)

disarray said:


> actually the data doesn't substantiate your points.



I never claimed migrants from non-English countries did better.
Nor did I claim that the unemployment experience of recently arrived migrants was better than than the average for all Australians.
I am grateful for the work you have done to elaborate these differences.


----------



## rederob (27 April 2009)

helicart said:


> well it is all retrospective isn't it. you are arguing that from now, we adopt higher levels of migration and a softer ....



Detailed data are difficult to source.  The most recent data are at the ABS link I posted earlier.
In relation to what I am "arguing", in this thread it will be mostly that common misconceptions lead to generalizations that ultimately are found to be without strong - or any - foundation.
Your 2nd point is a good demonstration of what I would challenge.  It's so logically flawed it becomes laughable.


----------



## helicart (27 April 2009)

rederob said:


> Detailed data are difficult to source.  The most recent data are at the ABS link I posted earlier.
> In relation to what I am "arguing", in this thread it will be mostly that common misconceptions lead to generalizations that ultimately are found to be without strong - or any - foundation.
> Your 2nd point is a good demonstration of what I would challenge.  It's so logically flawed it becomes laughable.




My 2nd point is validated by my first and third points, in addition to the experience of advanced European welfare economies that naively followed your bleeding heart line of taking in more migrants carte blanche....

According to your line, if a little of something (humanitarian migrant intake) is good, then we should have a lot more..... You and your equally ignorant ASF minions would be laughed out of Europe with that line of undergraduate twaddle. 

You really have no idea why infrastructure isn't keeping up with population growth do you.....


----------



## helicart (27 April 2009)




----------



## Happy (27 April 2009)

helicart said:


>




It is only minor technical problem as an X-ray or instant DNA swab could prove the identity


----------



## Bobby (27 April 2009)

Bobby said:


> Back to the topic , how many boats loads of illegal immigrants would you say  enough is enough  e.g.  50 , 100 , 1000  ?
> You can call them refugees if you like  ..




Looks like rederob missed the above , so lets try again  .

*Come on how many ?   *


----------



## rederob (27 April 2009)

helicart said:


> My 2nd point is validated by my first and third points, in addition to the experience of advanced European welfare economies that naively followed your bleeding heart line of taking in more migrants carte blanche....
> 
> According to your line, if a little of something (humanitarian migrant intake) is good, then we should have a lot more..... You and your equally ignorant ASF minions would be laughed out of Europe with that line of undergraduate twaddle.
> 
> You really have no idea why infrastructure isn't keeping up with population growth do you.....



Your second point should stand alone.  The first sentence of that point is the key to its logical fallacy.

According to my line our humanitarian intake is meagre according to our nation's wealth.  Poorer nations continue to support refugees better than Australia does.

Infrastructure is about commitment and cost, occasionally matched with need.  Australia recently squandered the best years of its economic history, leaving infrastructure spend significantly to the private sector.
Sometimes a visionary government does a Snowy, or Ord, or Burdekin.  But nowadays the bean counters intervene and put the kibosh on nation building infrastructure.  Except for a national water grid, Australia has more than adequate infrastructure to accommodate a significantly larger population than it has.  China is living proof of what can be done to put infrastructure in place, if need be.


----------



## rederob (27 April 2009)

Bobby said:


> Looks like rederob missed the above , so lets try again  .
> 
> *Come on how many ?   *



I would hate to provide an answer that needed explanation more than once, Bobby


----------



## Bobby (27 April 2009)

rederob said:


> Australia has more than adequate infrastructure to accommodate a significantly larger population than it has. .





*What ! * gee Rob how did you come up with that , taking my seat now   opcorn:


----------



## helicart (27 April 2009)

rederob said:


> Your second point should stand alone.  The first sentence of that point is the key to its logical fallacy.
> 
> poppyscock....you are just plying vacuous puffery for lack of insight....
> 
> ...




Which proves you want Australia to downgrade its wages and std of living to that of the majority of mainland Chinese........

Your last 24 hours of posts have shown you are a shallow vessel with a one line mantra Chairman....you really don't have any depth or breadth to your beliefs at all. I thought you would make a worthy adversary....but I was wrong....You have convinced me to change none of my views.....you just repeat the same tired hypnogogic line....time after time after time...

well, that's my lunch break

but I presume yours goes a couple of hours longer Chairman, in that flexi public service job you've got...


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (27 April 2009)

rederob,


> Your second point should stand alone.  The first sentence of that point is the key to its *logical fallacy*.



A logical fallacy. Now that is words working.



> Infrastructure is about commitment and cost, occasionally matched with need.  Australia recently squandered the best years of its economic history, leaving infrastructure spend significantly to the private sector.



The beauty of capitalism is that private enterprise does what a Marxist society would do. Now, that is not to say governments should not do anything about infrastructure. I support any goverment funding for infrastructure and the like. Giving handouts just to secure votes is totally wrong and squanders wealth. 



> Sometimes a visionary government does a Snowy, or Ord, or Burdekin.  But nowadays the bean counters intervene and put the kibosh on nation building infrastructure.  Except for a national water grid, *Australia has more than adequate infrastructure to accommodate a significantly larger population than it has.*  China is living proof of what can be done to put infrastructure in place, if need be.



Our last great leader was Sir Robert menzies. Since then, downhill. 

Australia does not have more than adequate infrastructure for a larger population. As has been noted before the majority of immigrants go to Melbourne or Sydney to live in their ghettos or slums if you like, further straining public transport, locking up roads with polluting worn out cars, and taking up that which the underfunded hospitals cannot support. 

China can undertake infrastructure projects at a speedy rate with cheap labor. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6945972.stm
Due to globalisation, the wealth being ammassed by China is funding those projects - to the detriment of other nations that send their industries there. 

*The part above in red is typical propagandish spin, similar to what you would hear from a politician.*


----------



## Calliope (27 April 2009)

*Refugees 'too poor' to pay smugglers
*


> Paul Maley | April 27, 2009
> 
> Article from:  The Australian
> A TOP Sri Lankan official has played down the concerns of the Rudd Government that fighting in Sri Lanka could provoke an exodus of boatpeople from the country, saying most refugees were too poor to afford the journey.
> ...




An economic asylum seeker is one who would prefer to get welfare in Australia to working at home. Unfortunately this applies to a few billion people.


----------



## helicart (27 April 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> rederob,
> 
> A logical fallacy. Now that is words working.




methinks you are too generous Snake. 

All fallacies are logical by nature. Chairman's redundant phraseology just  reveal his compromised education in science, philosophy and logic.


----------



## helicart (27 April 2009)

Calliope said:


> *Refugees 'too poor' to pay smugglers
> *
> 
> 
> An economic asylum seeker is one who would prefer to get welfare in Australia to working at home. Unfortunately this applies to a few billion people.




God.....after reading this, David Marr is going to have a heart attack, after his nervous breakdown....  hahahhahaha


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (27 April 2009)

helicart said:


> methinks you are too generous Snake.
> 
> All fallacies are logical by nature. Chairman's redundant phraseology just  reveal his compromised education in science, philosophy and logic.



Perhaps I should have used the sarcasm icon Helicart, but I can see how it will be misinterpreted. 
Cheers..


----------



## Bobby (27 April 2009)

helicart said:


> methinks you are too generous Snake.
> 
> All fallacies are logical by nature. Chairman's redundant phraseology just  reveal his compromised education in science, philosophy and logic.




Hahahahah ,


----------



## Bobby (27 April 2009)

Hey rederob see your logged in, no need to :hide: how about backing up your posts , come on now time to put-up or shut up


----------



## rederob (27 April 2009)

helicart said:


> methinks you are too generous Snake.
> 
> All fallacies are logical by nature. Chairman's redundant phraseology just  reveal his compromised education in science, philosophy and logic.



Many of your posts in this thread contain errors of fact and, therefore, contain false notions: Such as  "... I presume yours goes a couple of hours longer Chairman, in that flexi public service job you've got".  As I left the public sector in the 90s it is a fallacy to presume I also have long lunches.  
On the other hand, if a migrant worker is more productive than another class of worker, we might logically conclude that 10 migrant workers would be more productive than 10 of the other class, or that 1000 migrant workers would be more productive than 1000 of the other class.
Well, no, according to helicart, because productivity comes mostly from machines.
It sort of begs the question of how we worked out that migrants were more productive in the first place, doesn't it.  It's a cut and dried example of a logical fallacy.
I have always liked the 3-strikes rule because it put people out of their misery.   In helicart's case I will suspend it indefinitely because I am quite keen to see far he can sink.

Bobby/Snake
Now pay careful attention.
I have demonstrated that some fallacies draw from errors of fact, while others may draw from errors of logic.
Accordingly, helicart's original assertion is wrong.


----------



## ColB (27 April 2009)

> Originally Posted by *Rederob*
> 
> AIC publications are typically my source as they integrate State-by-State data. helicart's posted charts have *dubious integrity* in that only one State publishes criminality by country of birth. Aside from that, the *statistical error in extracting criminality/ethnicity* from other available data series is so high as to render any conclusions meaningless.




One State publishes criminality by country of birth.  Victoria wasn't it?  And if NSW published criminality by country of birth statistics do you really think the representation of ethnic minorities convicted of crimes would be any different to that of Victoria.  States with a much lower immigration rate of the same ethnic cultures that are highly represented in the Victorian crime statistics probably would depict a slightly different outcome.  

Your comment regarding 'statistical error in extracting criminality/ethnicity from other available data series is so high as to render any conclusions meaningless'  doesn't make sense.  You are aware that Victoria is the only state to provide statistics of criminality by country of birth.  If there were another state that would provide the same stats they would simply be sourced from Police records where the ethnicity of a person charged is always recorded during the processing of the offender.  The fact is, that these type of statistics are not generally released for public consumption.  If they were available they would not be subject to any statistical error in extraction nor their conclusion meaningless as you assert.



> Originally Posted by *Rederob*
> 
> By the way, most crimes are not reported, and of those that are, an overwhelming majority do not lead to a conviction (because nobody was charged in the first place).




Such a generalisation and if it were true how does it really change this whole debate that certain ethnic minorities are over represented in reported crime.  What you say is partly true, some women won't report a sexual assault due to the stigma associated with going through court, some won't report their letterbox being smashed but the majority of crimes that we are probably talking about here are generally reported.  

Regardless, your comment, unless put into some context that would support your views on this matter is also meaningless.


----------



## Bobby (27 April 2009)

Well  rederob you have tried personnel attacks on me that go deleted by Joe , you can't seem to understand others views ~ posts , you seem not capable to answer there points when they clash with yours  .

You sir are a joke , try redeeming something by answering these fellow posters who have put great effort to communicate with you .

Disarray Post 122
Helicart   "     135
Snake     "     136
Colb        "     144


----------



## helicart (27 April 2009)

Chairman, you are boring me with your 2nd rate untenured academic criticism of my logic, and your persistent omission of facts to back your views...

I can only surmise this angst ridden micromanager's tactic, so common amongst sharp but uselss public service pedants, is something you are well accustomed with, and revert to often, when you have no facts.

Some bits for you to go away and digest.

- unskilled migrants do have a historical reputation for working harder. (many have been my friends, and my partner was previously married to one but he died in an industrial accident, and I treat his 2 children as if my own). But can the unskilled even get work now? see my point 3 above......you know, that's one of the points that doesn't fit your Disney schema...

- skilled migrants do or do not work more productively....depending on where they originate....NZ, UK, Canada, US, Western Europe,and South Africa in general do.....others in general don't, and have to do additional training before often being relegated to some public sector works dept.

- you are saying it isn't possible for 100,000 harder working migrants to come to Australia (we'll even leave out family reunification and unskilled migrants who don't work) and not raise current gdp per capita by 
A: more than current net imports per capita, and 
B: more than their demand for additional infrastructure and public services. You can only hold such a view if you don't understand the AUstralian economy Chairman- its terms of trade, balance of payments, net foreign liabilities, source of capital for commercial lending, and vagaries of GDP calculation.

- which 100,000 jobs do you think migrants can do that don't have associated capital costs?

- where's the capital going to come from to supply your 100,000 migrants with 100,000 jobs? and just to clarify somethign you don't seem to get Chairman, because I daresay you haven't created any jobs, we aren't talking about 100,000 existing jobs, we are talking about 100,000 new jobs. 

You see Chairman, your specious but fallacious tendency is to always compare and contrast what others say, against your dearth of facts and understanding of macro and micro economics.

The issue is not your numpty interpretation of whether 100,000 migrants are more productive than 100,000 Skippies; it is whether Australia can create 100,000 additional jobs for 100,000 migrants, without lowering gdp per capita. 



rederob said:


> Many of your posts in this thread contain errors of fact and, therefore, contain false notions: Such as .




balderdash Chairman.....now run off and read something more practically applicable than radical empiricism.


----------



## Bobby (28 April 2009)

helicart said:


> balderdash Chairman.....now run off and read something more practically applicable than radical empiricism.




 Yep !  so many Pathetic response's from this nobody recently , lets redefine his title as Conrad gutless ,  the boy attacks then runs for cover every time , Question for rederob , simple question  how many boat loads are enough for you ?

Your post 135 was just so spot on    well done .


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 April 2009)

rederob said:


> Bobby/Snake
> Now pay careful attention.
> I have demonstrated that some fallacies draw from errors of fact, while others may draw from errors of logic.
> Accordingly, helicart's original assertion is wrong.




Explanation please!


----------



## Bobby (28 April 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Explanation please!




Its all sh*t talk ,  may  be a compromised agenda regarding race ?
You notice how aggressive he got with me when I stated what I heard on the radio , was like a witch hunt run by a goose  ,.
Kinda funny if the goose knew what he was taking on , I was nice to him for a while but he stepped over the line


----------



## mayk (28 April 2009)

Bobby said:


> Its all sh*t talk ,  may  be a compromised agenda regarding race ?
> You notice how aggressive he got with me when I stated what I heard on the radio , was like a witch hunt run by a goose  ,.
> Kinda funny if the goose knew what he was taking on , I was nice to him for a while but he stepped over the line




Bobby, no offense to you but you quoted a 'manufactured' statistic, and then was conclusively proven wrong by Julia and Rob. And you are still trying to score on that point... 
So what is your contribution to all this discussion, except for being a cheerleader for helicart? 


Highly skilled jobs (Engineers, doctors, scientists etc.) are hard to fill by the current bunch of born Australians.  If the situation is not improved then within 10 years most of these vacancies will be filled by immigrants, probably of Asian descent.


----------



## helicart (28 April 2009)

mayk said:


> Highly skilled jobs (Engineers, doctors, scientists etc.) are hard to fill by the current bunch of born Australians.  If the situation is not improved then within 10 years most of these vacancies will be filled by immigrants, probably of Asian descent.




Developing world engineers are either avoided by Australian employers and/or quals are not recognised and they have to do additional study...while Australia's engineers seek better paid work OS.

Doctor shortage is due to Gen XY metrosexual males and females (who account for >50% graduates) not wanting to work full time, and not wanting to live in regional areas. Plus some artificial income protection by the AMA by not producing a surplus of doctors to compensate for this. This can be overcome by any govt with the balls to break the AMA and their protectionist trick. 

Scientist shortage is due to Australia's non competitive employment opportunities and wages, and lack of venture capital and R&D investment....  This won't change for as long as the electorate buy a left wing agenda (higher taxed welfare state) in preference to an astute understanding of free markets.


----------



## rederob (28 April 2009)

helicart said:


> The issue is not your numpty interpretation of whether 100,000 migrants are more productive than 100,000 Skippies; it is whether Australia can create 100,000 additional jobs for 100,000 migrants, without lowering gdp per capita.



In the 5 years to January 2009 almost 1.2 million jobs were created.
In 2007 alone, about 300,000 jobs were created.
Until the global financial crisis hit our economy like a brick in 2008, these years were marked by steady GDP, our highest ever migrant intakes, and generally low unemployment rates.
The data are conclusive proof that Australia can absorb 100,000 migrants a year and not miss a beat, economically speaking.
Reference sources are at:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6202.0.55.001Jan 2009?OpenDocument
http://www.census.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/5206.0Mar 2007?OpenDocument


----------



## Stormin_Norman (28 April 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> While I would agree with many of the initiatives of the ALP government I feel that they are being schmoozed by the rich and powerful in Asia in to allowing queue jumpers to hire boats and just land on our Northern border.
> 
> I can see us down the track having "Australians" with agendas in other places, calling themselves Australian when all they seek is a piece of paper to further their agenda.
> 
> ...




got that tin foil hat to keep the sun off the back of your neck??


----------



## helicart (28 April 2009)

rederob said:


> The data are conclusive proof that Australia can absorb 100,000 migrants a year and not miss a beat, economically speaking




As I alluded, that growth was on the back of unsustainable growth in net foreign liabilities....the only way we can keep creating jobs under that scenario is to sell mines to China or continue to divert more gdp to servicing foreign sourced debt.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (28 April 2009)

mayk said:


> Highly skilled jobs (Engineers, doctors, scientists etc.) are hard to fill by the current bunch of born Australians.  If the situation is not improved then within 10 years most of these vacancies will be filled by immigrants, probably of Asian descent.



People from Asia have a lot to offer especially the skilled. Australian society can learn a lot from them.


----------



## helicart (28 April 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> People from Asia have a lot to offer especially the skilled. Australian society can learn a lot from them.




I agree.....and Australia will eventually become predominantly Asian race. It might take 100 years+ but it will happen....

 Anglo Aussies every year are more represented by white trash...undisciplined, promiscuous, high divorce rate, emotionally unresilient, welfare and drug dependent, unable to manage money or understand how wealth is generated. 

I honestly prefer to hang out with my Asian friends more than most anglos. They don't drink to excess if at all, and know the value of a dollar and about being self employed.


----------



## rederob (28 April 2009)

helicart said:


> As I alluded, that growth was on the back of unsustainable growth in net foreign liabilities....the only way we can keep creating jobs under that scenario is to sell mines to China or continue to divert more gdp to servicing foreign sourced debt.



Then why did you say, "The issue is not your numpty interpretation of whether 100,000 migrants are more productive than 100,000 Skippies; it is whether Australia can create 100,000 additional jobs for 100,000 migrants, without lowering gdp per capita"?
I get the feeling the goalposts keep moving to suit your next novel, unsustainable position.


----------



## Mr J (28 April 2009)

rederob said:


> In the 5 years to January 2009 almost 1.2 million jobs were created.
> In 2007 alone, about 300,000 jobs were created.
> Until the global financial crisis hit our economy like a brick in 2008, these years were marked by steady GDP, our highest ever migrant intakes, and generally low unemployment rates.
> The data are conclusive proof that Australia can absorb 100,000 migrants a year and not miss a beat, economically speaking.




And what now that the markets have slowed? Do we ship them back home until the next period of unsustainable "growth"?


----------



## helicart (28 April 2009)

rederob said:


> Then why did you say, "The issue is not your numpty interpretation of whether 100,000 migrants are more productive than 100,000 Skippies; it is whether Australia can create 100,000 additional jobs for 100,000 migrants, without lowering gdp per capita"?
> I get the feeling the goalposts keep moving to suit your next novel, unsustainable position.




I said that because I know what GDP per capiita is a derivative of, and migration no longer has the weight you believe it has. You seem to not understand the importance of capital in driving productivity, and the source of Australian capital is evermoreso from overseas.....why? because we have a welfare state, poor savings, no culture of R&D or venture capital, and ridiculous unproductive resi property prices to name a few. The left wing goons that go on about how wealthy we are don't understand these things....and in doing so, they want to import the poverty of more ignorant overpopulated cultures to Australia.....

Here, bleed on this for a moment. If you want to help foreigners in strife, tax payer dollars are better sent offshore to help whole villages then support the poor and unskilled settle in to Australia's welfare system.

So clarify what your goal is....to help 300 asylum seekers, or to help 300,000 villagers at home with food security and education......to focus just on what the cat brings to the back door is a little short sighted isn't it?

I presume you are familiar with the utilitarian calculus of creating the greatest good for the greatest number....whether you adopt a teleological or deontological slant.....why not apply it here....

Or don't tell me you are one of those greedy affluenza types who wants to steal all the smart people from the third world for your own smug well being, and leave their poor cousins back home at the mercy of the less cerebral.

That really is a sad and selfish mind set..... All these foreign doctors we have in Australia could all be back home helping the country folk whose toil paid for their medical education, to climb out of malnutrition and aids and all sorts of other ignorance......So think of the misery your selfishness is perpetuating overseas, when you next invite asylum seekers like the sri lankans (who apparently aren't asylum seekers at all) and skilled migrants to come over for 10 bites of the cherry while 9 of their cousins back home miss out.


----------



## Beenjammin (28 April 2009)

Largesse said:


> Y1:   1212 x 20000pa   = $24 249 090
> Y2: 2(1212 x 20000pa) = $48 498 181
> Y3: 3(1212 x 20000pa) = ....
> Y4: 4(1212 x 20000pa) = ....
> ...






And where does that money go? Right back into the economy, increasing demand and creating jobs. Its not like they ship it to offshore bank accounts - or invest it in shares that plummet and destroy value, where it effectively disappears altogether 

I know people who teach English to refugees, and within 12 months just about all of their students - husband and wives -  have jobs (not CEO of Telstra or anything like that but they are working). The main thing they want to do after they get settled is master the lingo before they go off to work. From personal observation, these guys dont seem to be bludgers, they want to provide for their families and take advantage of the good life they can make for themselves here. 

Bigger population = bigger economy = richer and more diverse culture = closer relationships with other countries = more tourism and exports = more jobs and money for everyone = happy little capitalists on ASF. A much bigger population is what we need, and as the locals seem to have lost interest in breeding we need immigrants. Its either that or raise tax on birth control and drop it on alcohol.


----------



## helicart (28 April 2009)

Beenjammin said:


> And where does that money go? Right back into the economy, increasing demand and creating jobs. Its not like they ship it to offshore bank accounts - or invest it in shares that plummet and destroy value, where it effectively disappears altogether
> 
> You need to read up on
> -remittance economies
> ...




Really???? then why are the UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, and France all cutting back on migrant intake????


----------



## doctorj (28 April 2009)

helicart said:


> Really???? then why are the UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, and France all cutting back on migrant intake????



The UK etc are cutting back on migrants because it's good come election time.  People like to blame someone else for their problems, it's easy to paint migrants as the bad guys when more people lose their jobs.

That said, I agree with your point on remittances.  Mexico, Philippines and even countries like Poland all rely to some degree on remittances to fund their economy.  That's not to say they send all their money home, but it does make up to 60% of some countries' GDP.  It also gives these countries access to valuable foreign currencies which helps their banking systems etc.

On a net-net basis, migration from these countries is probably good for everyone.  Countries like Australia get access to highly skilled people they wouldn't otherwise get, the migrants are able to provide food and housing for their families back home and these countries that have a net brain drain get a more stable currency, a more flexible banking system, a more skilled/experienced diaspora and a chance at a better life.  Would countries like Mexico or the Philippines stop their educated young people leaving if they could?  I very much doubt it.


----------



## So_Cynical (28 April 2009)

I was thinking about the Sri lankan's that arrived in WA a few weeks ago, and how it was 
a pretty impressive trip...5000 Kilometers non stop, across open ocean, with no significant 
land masses along the route.

I wonder if they even had a GPS?...the boat in the photo looks to be powered by engine 
only...wonder how much fuel they had left, and how much fuel they had when they first 
set off?

All in all a pretty ballsy thing to do...Not at all like the Afghan's that pretty much get a 
package deal from the people smugglers....can people that buy seats on commercial 
airliners really be called refugees.


----------



## helicart (28 April 2009)

doctorj said:


> The UK etc are cutting back on migrants because it's good come election time.  People like to blame someone else for their problems, it's easy to paint migrants as the bad guys when more people lose their jobs.
> 
> I'll stick with the explanation by this OECD paper about the Denmark experience.
> 
> ...




Of course not, because to emulate South Korea requires commitment, drive, determination, and an educated elite who stay home and organize affairs and inspire the nation. The easy path is to take the easy money....remittances..

imho, much of the problem of developing nations is overpopulation and a lack of vigour to emulate what successful free market democracies do....China and Taiwan, and more recently Vietnam, have shown what happens when developing nations do take the bull by the horns in their own country.

For the west to just keep skimming the elites out of the developing world, and letting the cause of overpopulation run unchecked, does more damage than good.


----------



## helicart (28 April 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> I was thinking about the Sri lankan's that arrived in WA a few weeks ago, and how it was
> a pretty impressive trip...5000 Kilometers non stop, across open ocean, with no significant
> land masses along the route.
> 
> ...




And it puts another spin on things when you consider the trip from Indonesia to Australia alone costs over 30 years of median Afghan wages...now how does a poor repressed Afghani get his hands on that sort of mulah????  I suppose remittances from Hazara communities in Australia is just way too far out of the question..........


----------



## So_Cynical (28 April 2009)

helicart said:


> Well, you have to run their story through a plausibility filter first. :




Barrow Island is a long way south, 1500 kms south of Xmas Island...and all 
the boats occupants were Sri Lankan, no Indo crew.


----------



## helicart (28 April 2009)

So_Cynical said:


> Barrow Island is a long way south, 1500 kms south of Xmas Island...and all
> the boats occupants were Sri Lankan, no Indo crew.




it was considerate of the 32 Sri Lankan male occupants to not take their wives and children on the ride.........which sort of puts a big hole in how much of a threat exits back home.


----------



## Beenjammin (28 April 2009)

helicart said:


> You need to read up on
> -remittance economies
> -the Hazara of Afghanistan.
> -Lebanese residents of Australia and remittances to Lebanon.
> - lebanese who acquire citizenship in Australia then go back to Lebanon.




Take out rent, food, clothing, toiletries, transport, electricity, gas, water, phone bills, and medical costs from $406 for two people for a week and work out how much of whats left over would go overseas. Looks like you need someone with a job to send spare money back home. 



> Read my earlier quote of official ABS stats in the unemployment rate amongst migrants....don't rely solely on your anecdotes.




I did - and it supports what I said. They have trouble getting work because becuase they don't speak English, but once that is conquered a lot of them can find jobs. Others, as you have pointed out, may not have suitable qualifications and have to do retraining. Ill reiterate, they dont decide to become a refugee in Australia for a bludge. They are humanitarian refugees looking for a better life, not backpacker bogans who want to sit on the couch and pull bongs all day. Its not that easy moving to a new country, new culture, new language, and 18 months to find work with only basic language skills is hardly surprising. Don't rely only on the statistics to tell the story, get out into the community and get an opinion of your own. 



> Really???? then why are the UK, Netherlands, Denmark, Germany, and France all cutting back on migrant intake????




They already have larger economies than ours. They have much denser populations than us. Once we get our economy as large as theirs, we could start looking at cutting back too.

Oh and with South Korea - to be as successful as they are you have to add to the mix a totalitarian government who only looks sane because their nothern neighbor is such a complete basket case. You need to read up on 
National Security Law
Sex Trafficking and Organised Crime
Systematic Abuse of Migrant Workers
Government sanctioned Police Brutality against human rights protesters

They're not the worst in the world but they leave a lot to be desired. Strong economic growth is useless if the rights of individuals suffer in the name of progress.


----------



## helicart (29 April 2009)

Beenjammin said:


> Take out rent, food, clothing, toiletries, transport, electricity, gas, water, phone bills, and medical costs from $406 for two people for a week and work out how much of whats left over would go overseas. Looks like you need someone with a job to send spare money back home.
> 
> not necessarily.....10-20 welfare recipients could finance 2-5 asylum seekers.
> 
> ...



................................


----------



## rederob (29 April 2009)

helicart said:


> ................................That's a rederob fallacy....why do we need to get our economy as big as China's or India's and will we sustain the current std of living if we do double our population? Why do you think Australia's endogenous birth rate is not enough to sustain the population, if the std of lving is so great here?
> 
> I've been making the point in this thread that despite our resouces, our welfare economy does not give a good return on investment. Therefore we have to borrow capital from overseas to operate our farms and mines and what is left of our manufacturing. Please apply yourself to a deeper understanding of micro and macro economics, and where Australia sits....... Just as Rudd and Swan had a steep learning curve when they got into power, and had to renege on most of their election platform, so must most with a left wing bent. Reading about how to redistribute wealth does not teach you how to create it.....



In this thread neither you nor your colleagues have found an error in my posts that can be substantiated.
The rebuttals are fearmongering, clumsy, confused ramblings that degenerate into labels and name calling.
You say, above, that we are a welfare economy, yet borrow from overseas to prop up our private sector.  Then you implore us to read more about economics.
Your logic processes are a delight.

Just a little point for you to ponder.  That great bastion of the free market, America, owes its economic strength to massive migration programs last century.  Your ilk would have us believe that this was not possible or, at least, not sustainable.

I rather like the proof of the pudding.


----------



## helicart (29 April 2009)

rederob said:


> In this thread neither you nor your colleagues have found an error in my posts that can be substantiated.
> 
> You are hardly the most impartial judge of that now are you Chairman...
> 
> ...




I have seen the limits of your knowledge and the blinkers of your socialist religiosity Chairman.......there's no sense in me appealing to reason and fact for an intellectually undisciplined zealot like you.....
 
Enjoy your delusion while it lasts Chairman....even as I write, Rudd is forced to bow before reality and surrender his ideologue delusions....

if you were right, then Rudd should be increasing migration to increase employment and gdp per capita and less reliance on foreign investment and sale of assets.......he should not be bailing out banks according to you, because you think they have enough money in Australia to rollover and refi liabilities....

But Chairman, you are not right.....just as guys of your ilk never are.....like Bob Hawke who vowed from his ivory pedestal, 

"BY 1990, NO AUSTRALIAN CHILD SHALL BE LIVING IN POVERTY"

He lived to regret it..and he was a fool for saying it.....as you will live to regret your faith in fantasy Chairman....or otherwise remain a fool...

I shall let unfolding events vindicate my words....


----------



## helicart (29 April 2009)

An unfolding event.....

*California is Bankrupt*

"You mean letting in millions of low-wage earners who consume more in public benefits than they contribute was a bad idea?  And that allowing teachers, nurses, and prison guard unions get too strong was a bad idea?

No way.  Liberalism teaches that unions are, well, something to _say yes _to. 
California had an economy larger than most first-world nations.  Now it's broke.  Remarkable.

What is _not _remarkable is the cover-up.  No one is talking about _why _California is broke.  You can't, because then you'd be racist.  Or you'd hate teachers.  Everyone knows a nice teacher.  Therefore, all teachers are great.  Therefore, teachers unions can't be too powerful.

Incidentally, California's situation shows why libertarian economists are morons.  Libertarian economists support open borders.  California has open borders.  Look what has happened.

Open borders work great in the absence of a welfare state.  I would support open borders if no taxpayer would be required to pay for immigrants' free health care and education.  That's not what has happened.

In a perfect world, yes, we'd have open borders.  Anyone who wanted to make his or her way through life would be allowed a shot.  Rise _or _fall.

We don't live in a perfect world.  We live in a welfare state.  Opening the borders expands the welfare state, since people are not allowed to fall.  And so California, once its own world economy, is bankrupt."


----------



## rederob (29 April 2009)

I feel like a boxer standing in the ring and watching his punch drunk opponent knock himself out.
In this thread I contend that as a wealthy nation we can afford a greater refugee intake, that our recent migrant intake has been of benefit and, that as a nation we are much the better for it.
Apart from several ethnic groups having a criminality rate higher than that for Australian born, the contrary view is otherwise mired in economic mumbo jumbo and ill considered comparisons.
We are not Europe and not California.
And we are not bankrupt.


----------



## ColB (29 April 2009)

> Originally posted by Rederob
> 
> "...In this thread I contend that as a wealthy nation we can afford a greater refugee intake..."




Yes, you are right on that score Red, we can afford a greater refugee intake *BUT* it will be to the detriment of most people living in Australia in the immediate future.


----------



## helicart (29 April 2009)

rederob said:


> We are not Europe and not California.
> And we are not bankrupt.




I only look punch drunk because you are looking at me through the bottom of your empty pint of cheap plonk Chairman......but don't stop at one...:drink:


Your wheels are spinning Chairman, but there's no traction.....  

So what should we increase immigration by to get us out of the grip of the GFC? That's your argument isn't it.....that more immigration will only add to gdp per capita and therefore be the economic stimulus creme de la creme..... So why hasn't Rudd worked that out?

And you are right that we are not California, we are about 10-15 years behind...but you want us to be California....don't you Chairman....right now

Further, your advice to Arnie would be to have even more migrants come, because they all work harder than the locals, and can only increase GDP per capita......plus you would advise that jobs don't even have to exist for them, because as they swell the population they would create their own demand, which would create employment opportunities....ummmm.......yeaaahhhhhhhh......rrriiiigggghhhhhhtttttttt.... 

You go tell the terminator how it is Chairman......there's a good fella


----------



## rederob (29 April 2009)

helicart said:


> So what should we increase immigration by to get us out of the grip of the GFC? That's your argument isn't it.....that more immigration will only add to gdp per capita and therefore be the economic stimulus creme de la creme..... So why hasn't Rudd worked that out?
> 
> And you are right that we are not California, we are about 10-15 years behind...but you want us to be California....don't you Chairman....right now



I don't recall saying we should increase migration.
And California is irrelevant to my considerations on migration.


----------



## ColB (29 April 2009)

> Originally posted by Rederob
> 
> "...I don't recall saying we should increase migration..."




By inference, your whole argument throughout this thread supports immigration.  Nice play on words though Red


----------



## rederob (29 April 2009)

ColB said:


> By inference, your whole argument throughout this thread supports immigration.  Nice play on words though Red



You are right.
I would not support an increase to migration in the present climate, but I believe our refugee intake needs to be steadily ratcheted upwards.  
Refugee intakes are much more costly in the short term, particularly as this group will have language difficulties on top of cultural challenges.  However, Australia's cultural diversity infrastructure is now quite mature and resettlement is well managed.


----------



## doctorj (29 April 2009)

helicart said:


> I don't see how a brain drain from a developing nation can be beneficial to that country..... I think you're taking a long shot. Ultimately, developing nations would be better off with the educated driving politics and economic development, rather than abandoning control to military thugs and the criminal element (Mexican drug lords).
> 
> South Korea is doing very well because the educated didn't flee it in droves. In fact, they have become a source of employment for foreign labor. The speed with which South Korea has modernized itself disproves so much of the West's paternalist attitude towards developing nations.
> 
> ...



Unfortunately, the people in these countries don't live 'in the long run'; their needs are immediate.  There is no pension system, no safety net and little savings.  An individual's 'superannuation' as they leave the work force is two fold - their house (which tends to be former state owned housing, or something they've bought during their working years) which is nice but very difficult to monetise and the education of their children.

Without the country investing in pension scheme (which would require World Bank or IMF funding), you NEED remittances from overseas workers to keep food on the table.

I agree that in the long run, this sort of brain drain isn't helpful for a developing country to transition to the first world, but there isn't much of an alternative.
I've worked with dozens (if not hundreds) of people from 'developing' countries - Philippines, Thailand, Poland, Albania, Bulgaria, Romania, even many of the former soviet -stans.  For the most part, they are highly skilled and very good at their job.  Language skills and getting their qualification recognised tends to be where the issues are, but this can be a problem with all overseas workers.  For example, I know first hand of 2 people at big 4 accounting firms here in the UK of South African and Australian origin that are having to sit local qualifications to be eligible for partnership.

I believe the best thing the developed world can do to help the developing world is to provide a steady supply of capital that is contingent on local countries and businesses taking steps to improve their practices, modernise and reduce corruption.

In this, highly educated people with international experience from these local countries are a valuable resource to help understand the local market to better direct capital and attached conditions to help build local businesses and markets.


----------



## helicart (29 April 2009)

rederob said:


> The issue, as I see it, is that we are now in a "global" environment and need to accept our reasonable share of responsibilities.




And a reasonable share is what Chairman? 
There's 5B people in the world economically and socially worse off than us...

Which services in Australia do you want to take govt expenditure from to pay for our share of responsibilities to the 5b.....

Do you want to spend that on 300 boaties or 300,000 via education and population control in their homeland?

Never mind answering....it was a rhetorical question...I realize such calculus does your head in cos you want to help everyone who hasn't got as much bling in their lives as you.

But who are you to say what is the better path to happiness Chairman.....Your paternal attitude to foreigners may very well deprive them of the inspiration and wisdom of Buddha Boy....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v29clGMWU84&feature=channel_page


----------



## disarray (29 April 2009)

rederob said:


> In this thread I contend that as a wealthy nation we can afford a greater refugee intake, that our recent migrant intake has been of benefit and, that as a nation we are much the better for it.




the problem is you are saying "bring more immigrants" yet you fail to specify how many we should bring in, whether we should be looking at a population cap given the state of our infrastructure, where we want to source the immigrants from, where we will house them, and how much the rest of us should be paying to facilitiate their arrival.

considering you are a first generation australian (if your mother was a refugee as you state) i find it rather rude you demand the rest of society lowers its own standard of living to accommodate an unspecified number of arrivals from unspecified corners of the globe, then have the gall to throw around terms of "racist" and "xenophobe" when people rightly call you up on your lunacy. "yay more immigrants!" he wails flailing his arms around in the air.

here in australia it is a fact that we have certain groups of ethnics who exhibit a massive propensity towards criminality and long term welfare dependence. you suggest we should be sourcing more of these people? or perhaps just open the borders and let any enterprising spirit make the leap by means fair or foul and welcome them with open arms regardless of their background, ideology, beliefs, work ethic or intentions?

you're quite the ideas man aren't you? not so big on the implementation obviously, but points for effort.


----------



## rederob (29 April 2009)

helicart said:


> And a reasonable share is what Chairman?



You mean that when you re-read all my posts to discover an inconsistency, this was the best you could do!
Take care to quote in context, as I did say it was a reasonable share of our *responsibilities *that should be accepted.
In that context I repeat what I have said about refugee intakes in that we can afford to take more:  That we have a capacity to ratchet the numbers higher over time.  
Government expenditure need not be taken from anywhere as the additional costs could be covered by maintaining tax bracket levels rather than adjusting them incrementally as wages/salaries increased.


----------



## rederob (29 April 2009)

disarray said:


> the problem is you are saying "bring more immigrants" yet you fail to specify how many we should bring in, whether we should be looking at a population cap given the state of our infrastructure, where we want to source the immigrants from, where we will house them, and how much the rest of us should be paying to facilitiate their arrival.



At no point in this thread have I said "bring more immigrants".
In relation to infrastructure, it is curious is it not that in over 200 years of settlement with consistent new arrivals from overseas we have managed to prosper.  Exactly how will future years be different if our governments manage as well as they have in the past?

By the way, check carefully and you will find this is the only time in this thread that I have used the word *racist*, and I use it only to make that point.  It appears you and others have fed from your own suggestions about views I have never here expressed, and come to conclusions that have their foundations in your arguments rather than mine.


----------



## helicart (29 April 2009)

rederob said:


> You mean that when you re-read all my posts to discover an inconsistency, this was the best you could do!




No, from memory it was the first inconsistency I found.....in either your first or second post to the thread....I didn't bother looking any further after that....


Don't bother addressing the utilitarian calculus dilemma. I realize it would angst you out having to make a choice on which foreigners to help and which to ignore...


----------



## Julia (30 April 2009)

rederob said:


> In relation to infrastructure, it is curious is it not that in over 200 years of settlement with consistent new arrivals from overseas we have managed to prosper.  Exactly how will future years be different if our governments manage as well as they have in the past?




Rob I'm surprised you think government have managed well.  Only because of recent unusual levels of rain have Brisbane residents been able to use a hose occasionally.  The water restrictions there for the past few years have been very rigid because the government failed to provide the water infrastructure to meet the needs of the growing population.   The roads are choked, and the hospitals overflowing.

Sydney has had several major power outages in the CBD because of ageing infrastructure, also has traffic and healthcare problems.

Don't know much about the other States but gather the water situation in at least Victoria and S.A. is dire also.

So I'd disagree that our infrastructure can easily cope with an increased level of population.


----------



## rederob (30 April 2009)

helicart said:


> No, from memory it was the first inconsistency I found.....in either your first or second post to the thread....I didn't bother looking any further after that....



You and Bobby need to get together.
You seem to have a lot of trouble with logic, and now I catch you out making yet another statement without any factual basis.  
It does seem to be a theme you are developing with some consistency.


----------



## rederob (30 April 2009)

Julia said:


> Rob I'm surprised you think government have managed well.  Only because of recent unusual levels of rain have Brisbane residents been able to use a hose occasionally.  The water restrictions there for the past few years have been very rigid because the government failed to provide the water infrastructure to meet the needs of the growing population.   The roads are choked, and the hospitals overflowing.
> 
> Sydney has had several major power outages in the CBD because of ageing infrastructure, also has traffic and healthcare problems.
> 
> ...



Julia
You will have seen in my earlier post about infrastructure that I excluded "water" from our accomplishments.
There are other avenues available to address some of your other concerns, like better transport planning, or more public transport.  Or increased migration for professionals in short supply!


----------



## helicart (30 April 2009)

rederob said:


> You seem to have a lot of trouble with logic, and now I catch you out making yet another statement without any factual basis.
> It does seem to be a theme you are developing with some consistency.




You only see it that way because you don't understand Adam Smith and human nature......up to your eyeballs in Marx and Lenin though.

I could list the various cognitive biases you have been guilty of in this thread, but it would take too long, and I have employees to tend....but doubt you could relate to that...


----------



## >Apocalypto< (30 April 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> While I would agree with many of the initiatives of the ALP government I feel that they are being schmoozed by the rich and powerful in Asia in to allowing queue jumpers to hire boats and just land on our Northern border.
> 
> I can see us down the track having "Australians" with agendas in other places, calling themselves Australian when all they seek is a piece of paper to further their agenda.
> 
> ...





You do understand we are all illegal immigrants and only one group of people can complain about the mass arrival of foreigners on their land!


----------



## Prospector (30 April 2009)

>Apocalypto< said:


> You do understand we are all illegal immigrants and only one group of people can complain about the mass arrival of foreigners on their land!




And they were boat people too, albeit a few thousand years earlier!


----------



## helicart (30 April 2009)

>Apocalypto< said:


> You do understand we are all illegal immigrants and only one group of people can complain about the mass arrival of foreigners on their land!






Prospector said:


> And they were boat people too, albeit a few thousand years earlier!




Ah the latte leftie "sorry us caucasian homo sapien sapiens exist and strive to ease the ignorance and suffering of the human race" guilt, that quests to devolve us all to a previous life as Cro Magnons dwelling in the primordial slime....


----------



## Prospector (30 April 2009)

helicart said:


> Ah the latte leftie "sorry us caucasian homo sapien sapiens exist and strive to ease the ignorance and suffering of the human race" guilt, that quests to devolve us all to a previous life as Cro Magnons dwelling in the primordial slime....




Cant help yourself make assumptions, can you?  And so rude. Again you show you cant engage in any discussion about an argument without personally attacking the person, in this case the 'latte leftie'. If you really knew anything about me you would be really embarassed by that assumption.


----------



## helicart (30 April 2009)

Prospector said:


> Cant help yourself make assumptions, can you?  And so rude. Again you show you cant engage in any discussion about an argument without personally attacking the person, in this case the 'latte leftie'. If you really knew anything about me you would be really embarassed by that assumption.




But I don't know anything about you (but your posts are a giveaway) and you aren't volunteering, ergo, I am not embarassed.....

Now off you go, back to the wt loss support group thread to exchange mollifying niceties and misinformation.


----------



## Joe Blow (30 April 2009)

Just jumping into this thread to remind people about ASF's Rules of Engagement, as I have noticed things getting a little too personal for my liking.


 Argue the issues, do not attack people personally.
 Only refer to people by their ASF user names. Referring to someone by a name other than their user name is considered a personal attack and will not be tolerated.
 Anyone who is here just to provoke others or disrupt the thread will find themselves in hot water. 
 Everyone is entitled to their opinions, however hatemongering and vilification is not permitted at ASF.

Please feel free to continue this discussion with the above points in mind. Those who choose to ignore them do so at their own peril.


----------



## helicart (30 April 2009)

Joe Blow said:


> Just jumping into this thread to remind people about ASF's Rules of Engagement, as I have noticed things getting a little too personal for my liking.
> Argue the issues, do not attack people personally.
> Only refer to people by their ASF user names. Referring to someone by a name other than their user name is considered a personal attack and will not be tolerated.
> Anyone who is here just to provoke others or disrupt the thread will find themselves in hot water.
> ...






OK, then this is my last contribution to this thread.

I don't want to have the facts I use to form my non racist views, censored by Joe's (or any forumite who disagrees with me) fuzzy interpretation of the spurious concept 'vilification'. 

It is after all a term the law is inconsistent in defining and executing, as in its lax treatment of hate mongering against Christian conservatives, the Catholic church, and its priests (religious vilification)....and its aggressive stance against reflecting non caucasians in a poor light.

A highly damaging example of the latter is that caucasian criminal suspects can be called so in the media, but the race of non caucasian suspects is suppressed, with prejudice.

In the mean time, effective real world solutions go begging. And everyone ends up worse off down the track....It is this very pussyfooting by PC elites who like to exploit lower paid migrants, that has led to California's insolvency and compounded race issues in Europe. 

On this thread I have not argued against migration per se...I have argued that an optimal rate and mix of migration must be sought, so that the std of living and future environmentally sustainable economic viability of the country is not heavily compromised. 

Some in the thread cannot or will not debate what is a viable level of migration, because their thoughts are not evolved enough to clearly delineate what is reasonable debate of such and what might be purveyed as racism.

And it is sad that this same lack of delineation is continuing to compromise debate of these extremely important issues in the media. 

It is sad because it shows there is not enough maturity and subtlety of intelligence amongst some, to walk the middle path through these issues and find a more favourable outcome for all. Instead, the migration debate is shut down and demonized by PC extremists and elites who think they will benefit from downwards pressure on the minimum wage.

And to clarify, anyone who has read what I said earlier in the thread about my life history, and then implies I am a racist or that I have been toying with racial vilification, are themselves guilty of deliberate and provocative hate mongering against me and people who share my values.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (30 April 2009)

>Apocalypto< said:


> You do understand we are all illegal immigrants and only one group of people can complain about the mass arrival of foreigners on their land!



Australia has been colonised more than once. The first occupants didn't sprout up out of the ground.


----------



## rederob (30 April 2009)

helicart said:


> On this thread I have not argued against migration per se...I have argued that an optimal rate and mix of migration must be sought, so that the std of living and future environmentally sustainable economic viability of the country is not heavily compromised.




And this is how you went about it:







helicart said:


> According to your line, Australia should drop its standard of living so guys like you can have warm and fuzzies.
> 
> Your view is subversive and racist in that you consider 3rd world citizens so intellectually and physically challenged, that they can't organize themselves into large groups, fight for a better future for their countries (pakistan and afghanistan), exercise restraint from bonking long enough to bring down their populations to sustainable levels (sudan and most sub Sahara), and get on with a democratic free market economy.....
> 
> ...






> Some in the thread cannot or will not debate what is a viable level of migration, because their thoughts are not evolved enough to clearly delineate what is reasonable debate of such and what might be purveyed as racism.



Which you eloquently captured:







helicart said:


> I said that because I know what GDP per capiita is a derivative of, and migration no longer has the weight you believe it has. You seem to not understand the importance of capital in driving productivity, and the source of Australian capital is evermoreso from overseas.....why? because we have a welfare state, poor savings, no culture of R&D or venture capital, and ridiculous unproductive resi property prices to name a few. The left wing goons that go on about how wealthy we are don't understand these things....and in doing so, they want to import the poverty of more ignorant overpopulated cultures to Australia........







> And it is sad that this same lack of delineation is continuing to compromise debate of these extremely important issues in the media.
> 
> It is sad because it shows there is not enough maturity and subtlety of intelligence amongst some, to walk the middle path through these issues and find a more favourable outcome for all. Instead, the migration debate is shut down and demonized by PC extremists and elites who think they will benefit from downwards pressure on the minimum wage.



 Do you mean this kind of maturity and subtlety?







> Or don't tell me you are one of those greedy affluenza types who wants to steal all the smart people from the third world for your own smug well being, and leave their poor cousins back home at the mercy of the less cerebral.
> 
> That really is a sad and selfish mind set..... All these foreign doctors we have in Australia could all be back home helping the country folk whose toil paid for their medical education, to climb out of malnutrition and aids and all sorts of other ignorance......So think of the misery your selfishness is perpetuating overseas, when you next invite asylum seekers like the sri lankans (who apparently aren't asylum seekers at all) and skilled migrants to come over for 10 bites of the cherry while 9 of their cousins back home miss out.


----------



## Bobby (30 April 2009)

Talking about  boats that contain Afghan men , these guys have left family ,  women &  children behind as they target here for a better economic pig-out.

At the same time we are sending our troupes to help their country .

Our hero's go there , their cowards come here !


----------



## mayk (1 May 2009)

Bobby said:


> Talking about  boats that contain Afghan men , these guys have left family ,  women &  children behind as they target here for a better economic pig-out.
> 
> At the same time we are sending our troupes to help their country .
> 
> Our hero's go there , their cowards come here !




Why not train these guys and then post them in Afghanistan!!


----------



## Bobby (1 May 2009)

mayk said:


> Why not train these guys and then post them in Afghanistan!!




We are training them over-there , these grubs are just parasites , if they don't give a sh*t about there home land , imagine what sort of loyalty  they will have for Australia  ?


----------



## doctorj (1 May 2009)

Bobby said:


> We are training them over-there , these grubs are just parasites , if they don't give a sh*t about there home land , imagine what sort of loyalty they will have for Australia ?



How can you possibly judge the reasons and motivation for them coming to Australia without knowing anything beyond what you've seen in the press?  Surely there are dozens of valid and honourable reasons for them to risk their lives to come to Australia?  Frankly, calling them grubs and parasites without any understanding or knowledge at all is offensive and arrogant.


----------



## Bobby (1 May 2009)

doctorj said:


> How can you possibly judge the reasons and motivation for them coming to Australia without knowing anything beyond what you've seen in the press?  Surely there are dozens of valid and honourable reasons for them to risk their lives to come to Australia?  Frankly, calling them grubs and parasites without any understanding or knowledge at all is offensive and arrogant.




Doc , they are abandoning their families & country , running away from a conflict we are spending Aussie lives to save , thats why


----------



## doctorj (1 May 2009)

Bobby said:


> Doc , they are abandoning their families & country , running away from a conflict we are spending Aussie lives to save , thats why



I just don't think that's a reasonable conclusion to draw without any idea of the reasons behind their actions.


----------



## Stormin_Norman (1 May 2009)

93% of refugees arrive by jumbo jets.


----------



## rederob (4 May 2009)

helicart said:


> On this thread I have not argued against migration per se.



You argued against taking on more refugees; asylum seekers; a greater humanitarian intake; unskilled migration; certain ethnic groups; non-English speaking migrants; and skilled workers who left less developed nations to come here.




> I have argued that an optimal rate and mix of migration must be sought, so that the std of living and future environmentally sustainable economic viability of the country is not heavily compromised.



At no point did you suggest “an optimal rate and mix of migration”.  You used decade old data for criminality that extrapolated one State’s experience to represent the national experience, despite their being no evidence this was the case.  You chose to ignore the fact that the best available information suggests that non-Australian born have a criminality rate less than Australian born.
You cherry picked labour force data that, unsurprisingly, showed that skilled white people from English speaking nations did better than other overseas born.  Yet the labour force data show that over time there is little difference in unemployment rates between native and overseas born.
You distorted logic to suggest that more productive overseas born were actually less productive.
You recreated a reality that suited your distorted view to prove that unskilled migration would be detrimental to our standard of living.  You were unable to show this for Australia, instead relying on overseas experiences which are very dissimilar to our own.




> Some in the thread cannot or will not debate what is a viable level of migration, because their thoughts are not evolved enough to clearly delineate what is reasonable debate of such and what might be purveyed as racism.



In the past 5 years Australia created 1.2 million new jobs, had a relatively steady GDP, our lowest employment rates and our highest ever migrant intakes.  This countered your assertion that we couldn’t accommodate 100,000 migrants without lowering per capita GDP.
Your response was sheer gobbledygook; difficult to follow economic mumbo jumbo and social diatribes that took snippets from all over the place in a confused attempt to support your position, eg:.


> ....the lower birth rate of caucasians in developed nations is a result of a poorer std of living....the stress of job insecurity, dual income families out of need not choice, indebted to the eyeballs from school, high cost of housing, poor infrastructure, higher health care costs, lack of security in retirement etc etc....and this is your idea of wealth....







> And it is sad that this same lack of delineation is continuing to compromise debate of these extremely important issues in the media.  It is sad because it shows there is not enough maturity and subtlety of intelligence amongst some, to walk the middle path through these issues and find a more favourable outcome for all. Instead, the migration debate is shut down and demonized by PC extremists and elites who think they will benefit from downwards pressure on the minimum wage.



You provided little to debate.  Responses to my posts were peppered with exaggerated and false assumptions, silly labels, and contrived conclusions that deliberately misrepresented what I stated.  You walked no "middle path".

Your “last post” in this thread is a contemptuous lie draped in moral indignation.  In context, it is entirely in keeping with many of your earlier posts.  
I give you high marks for consistency.


----------



## Calanen (4 May 2009)

Immigration should only be permitted on the basis as if it is a job interview. The best applicants get the job, in the national interest. Not anyone who applies like the ability to be an Australian citizen is a worthless handout, like our passports are junk mail given to any who would wish it. 

They should let more backpackers stay here. They speak English, their education is high, they are by and large peaceful and many want to stay. It is ridiculous to kick them out and let other people in who hate this country and are avowedly against our laws and system of government.


----------



## mayk (4 May 2009)

Calanen said:


> Immigration should only be permitted on the basis as if it is a job interview. The best applicants get the job, in the national interest. Not anyone who applies like the ability to be an Australian citizen is a worthless handout, like our passports are junk mail given to any who would wish it.
> 
> They should let more backpackers stay here. They speak English, their education is high, they are by and large peaceful and many want to stay.* It is ridiculous to kick them out and let other people in who hate this country and are avowedly against our laws and system of government.*




Your conclusion states all people who fail to obey the law of the land should be kicked out, yet you support the English speaking backpackers who knowingly discard our immigration laws. A fine example of Hypocrisy...


----------



## Calanen (4 May 2009)

mayk said:


> Your conclusion states all people who fail to obey the law of the land should be kicked out, yet you support the English speaking backpackers who knowingly discard our immigration laws. A fine example of Hypocrisy...




All English backpackers knowingly discard our immigration laws? My my, they must have a big jail somewhere full of about 10 million people.


----------



## mayk (4 May 2009)

Calanen said:


> All English backpackers knowingly discard our immigration laws? My my, they must have a big jail somewhere full of about 10 million people.




I never said "ALL" only those who disregard our laws, read before you get on the mantra of "my, my" and ohhh Dear-ism.


----------



## Calanen (4 May 2009)

mayk said:


> I never said "ALL" only those who disregard our laws, read before you get on the mantra of "my, my" and ohhh Dear-ism.




I did read, you said:



> yet you support the English speaking backpackers who knowingly discard our immigration laws.




When I never said anything of the sort. The only available inference from the sequence of sentences is that you believe all English backpackers are immigration lawbreakers. Who said anything about supporting lawbreakers? Only you. Just for the record, any lawbreakers, whether English backpackers or otherwise, were not going to be part of my immigration program. But did I really need to say that? Perhaps only for you.


----------



## mayk (4 May 2009)

Calanen said:


> I did read, you said:
> 
> 
> 
> When I never said anything of the sort. The only available inference from the sequence of sentences is that you believe all English backpackers are immigration lawbreakers. Who said anything about supporting lawbreakers? Only you. Just for the record, any lawbreakers, whether English backpackers or otherwise, were not going to be part of my immigration program. But did I really need to say that? Perhaps only for you.




What does kicking backpackers mean? As you alluded in your post. I might have misunderstood...


----------



## helicart (4 May 2009)

rederob said:


> You provided little to debate.  Responses to my posts were peppered with exaggerated and false assumptions, silly labels, and contrived conclusions that deliberately misrepresented what I stated.  You walked no "middle path".




Not once did you elaborate the human carrying capacity of Australia (let alone the planet), nor a sustainable migration rate. 

As the Australian continent continues to be degradated i.e. the Murray Darling Basin, you live, think, and breathe in the dark shadow of anachronistic socialist ideology when it comes to migration, ignoring that other great religious mantra of the left, the real risk of global warming

Not once did you address the cause and unsustainability of rising net foreign liabilities, in the face of some of the fastest migration fueled population growth in recent history....presumably because you are at best an economic dilettante.... Neither did you address the reason why infrastructure is not keeping up with migration, as evidenced by the financial woes of NSW and Vic State govts, the two states that benefit most from migration.....and how you manage to exclude California's experience with migration can only be surmised as the greatest the quaintest and the most convenient non sequitur ever. 

Clearly, you do not apply yourself to the issues I have raised because you are not adequately informed and you offer emotion and ego in its place. And no greater consistency has there been in this thread than that..


----------



## Calanen (4 May 2009)

mayk said:


> What does kicking backpackers mean? As you alluded in your post. I might have misunderstood...




It means that after their 6 month visas run out, these people have to go home when loads of them want to stay. And they should be allowed to stay.


----------



## rederob (4 May 2009)

helicart said:


> Clearly, you do not apply yourself to the issues I have raised because you are not adequately informed and you offer emotion and ego in its place. And no greater consistency has there been in this thread than that..



You have little capacity to stay on task.
You shift the goalposts whenever the game gets away from you.
You are doing it again.
If you want a debate about sustainability, open another thread.
If you want to debate the infrastructure issues confronting States, open another thread.
If you want to compare Australia to California, open another thread.
In the meantime I look forward to anything more here that invites interest.


----------



## helicart (4 May 2009)

rederob said:


> You have little capacity to stay on task.
> You shift the goalposts whenever the game gets away from you.
> You are doing it again.
> If you want a debate about sustainability, open another thread.
> ...





OK, just address these two points when you are good and ready. 

-the positive correlation between migration and the failure of publicly funded infrastructure and service delivery to keep up.

- the positive correlation between Australia's rising net foreign debt and higher migration over the last 25 years.


----------



## rederob (4 May 2009)

helicart said:


> OK, just address these two points when you are good and ready.
> 
> -the positive correlation between migration and the failure of publicly funded infrastructure and service delivery to keep up.
> 
> - the positive correlation between Australia's rising net foreign debt and higher migration over the last 25 years.



You should know better. Positive correlations do not imply causality.  Nor are the underlying points tested for validity.
For as long as I have been reading newspapers - and it's more than 25 years - the hue and cry for more infrastructure has gone out.  This issue is a furphy.
On foreign debt and migration there is a pretty simple explanation.  In boom times we need overseas capital to finance industry, and we need overseas labour to address labour shortages.  There is no need to correlate the obvious.
Stop clutching at straws, and get back to the nub of the thread's theme.


----------



## mayk (4 May 2009)

Calanen said:


> It means that after their 6 month visas run out, these people have to go home when loads of them want to stay. And they should be allowed to stay.




Well I am all for it, given UK reciprocates the favor. Otherwise just get the sensible, good hard working immigrants, without any bias or exception.


----------



## helicart (5 May 2009)

rederob said:


> You should know better. Positive correlations do not imply causality.  Nor are the underlying points tested for validity.
> For as long as I have been reading newspapers - and it's more than 25 years - the hue and cry for more infrastructure has gone out.  This issue is a furphy.
> 
> 
> ...




Try and come up with an excuse for Aussie miners needing to not only borrow foreign money, but be put in a position to sell the farm and mine....Poor Wayne Swan almost has a full time job appraising overseas purchases of Aussie miners. 

Minmetals on Oz Minerals
Chinalco on Rio
Hunan Valin Iron and Steel Group on Fortescue Metals Group
Shougang by stealth buying up Mount Gibson Iron Ore.
Shougang Group on Mount Gibson Iron Ore 
Shenzhen Zhongjin Lingnan Nonfemet and PT Aneka Tambang Tbk on Herald Resources Ltd
MCC Mining on Cape Lambert Iron Ore Ltd
China Shenhua Group and China Coal Energy, Yanzhou Coal Mining on Aussie coal mines. 
Haoning Group on Brockman Resources Ltd

Shell on Woodside several years ago.

Wow, so you want us to take on more people from overseas while we are simultaneously selling off our assets and company revenues.  Now that's a neat trick.....
 
Here, this might help you understand why you need to take capital considerations more seriously. 

"Access Economics forecasts that the current account deficit will blow out to $100 billion, or 8.4 per cent of GDP, next financial year. That’s “something bigger and nastier than anything we’ve ever seen”, according to its director Chris Richardson. 
 
Financing this external deficit will push up Australia’s net foreign liabilities, mostly due to a ballooning in net foreign debt from $678 billion to $873 billion by 2012-13, according to Access Economics. 
 
At 63 per cent of GDP, this would be double the foreign debt burden that sparked Paul Keating’s “banana republic” warning in 1986. 

 *“The boom years masked an underlying worsening in Australia’s foreign debt trajectory, but the downturn is now making our vulnerability on this front clearer,”* Richardson says. This limits how much more Australia can borrow abroad to get it through the recession. The alternatives are a recession to club local credit demand and increased foreign equity investment in the Australian economy. 
 
With falling oil prices drying up the petro-dollars, China and Japan have the biggest financial surpluses to invest abroad. This is driving the surge of Chinese investment in Australia’s mining sector, capped by Chinalco’s $US19.5 billion bid to double its equity stake in Rio Tinto to 18 per cent. 
 
In opposing Chinalco’s bid as against the national interest, Turnbull yesterday depicted it as a strategic play by the Chinese state to control Australian resources. But debtors can only be so choosy. Blocking an equity investment from the world’s biggest source of savings amid a global credit crunch would increase Australia’s recession risks. 

“If we didn’t want Chinalco to be buying up bits of Australia, we shouldn’t have bought so many plasma TVs,” Richardson says."

And it isn't just industry that has increased foreign borrowing....resi mortgages rely on it too.....check out what's happening with fixed rates in the last few weeks.


----------



## rederob (5 May 2009)

helicart said:


> And it isn't just industry that has increased foreign borrowing....resi mortgages rely on it too.....check out what's happening with fixed rates in the last few weeks.



Stay on task.
You need to show the material impact of migration on company takeovers, etc..


----------



## helicart (5 May 2009)

rederob said:


> Stay on task.
> You need to show the material impact of migration on company takeovers, etc..




As you need to disprove

-that infrastructure isn't keeping up with pop growth. 

-that migrant intake hasn't improved Australia's balance sheet and cash flow.



Processing the claims of dual asylum seeker entrants wouldn't be helping...


----------



## rederob (5 May 2009)

helicart said:


> As you need to disprove
> 
> -that infrastructure isn't keeping up with pop growth.
> 
> ...



I don't need to disprove anything.
Infrastructure has a replacement cost, in addition to updating/modernisation costs, over and above "new" costs resulting from population growth.  Infrastructure plays a never ending game of catch-up, as it has done in Australia for over 200 years.
The contribution of migrants to Australia's wealth can similarly be measured back to first settlement.  What exactly is your point?  That migrants never have, don't much, or don't now contribute?
The fact is that certain categories of migrant are proven to have increased our living standards, and made a net positive contribution to BOP from the outset.  
It would be unrealistic to expect that refugee/humanitarian intakes would make a positive financial contribution for many years, although labour force data shows this group to be adept at entering the workforce despite major language, educational and cultural challenges.


----------



## helicart (5 May 2009)

rederob said:


> I don't need to disprove anything.
> 
> So you base your views, on your views....how convenient...
> 
> ...




And you still haven't provided that data....the data I provided revealed the this group as anything but adept.....and what % of total migration does the humanitarian group make?


----------



## Calanen (5 May 2009)

mayk said:


> Well I am all for it, given UK reciprocates the favor. Otherwise just get the sensible, good hard working immigrants, without any bias or exception.




Being able to speak English is a good start. Also if you are a member of an ideology committed to the overthrow of our secular government through warfare and the installation of a supremacist theocracy in which non-members are accorded the privilege of living as slaves if they are not killed, for example,  I would put that in the 'No' box. But I'm considered somewhat 'intolerant' of people who would like me to live as slaves under their totalitarian rule, it's a failing of mine I readily concede.

Why would we want the UK to reciprocate anything? We want our good people to stay here. Better off that they don't reciprocate.


----------



## helicart (5 May 2009)

Be interesting to see the response of the apologists when/if the Taliban are overthrown, and their countrymen seek revenge upon them....

As the Talis in their 10s of thousands attempting to escape the slaughter, boat up to Australia's top left corner seeking asylum, Labor and the greens, to be consistent, will have to say 

"yes, you have proven you are at risk of persecution in your country, and we now heartily grant you asylum....plenty of room for everyone.....yes you can bring your brother and sister and mother and father and cousins....what's that? you want to bring your religious leaders? sure.....we believe all religions are equal and we have a policy against religious vilification....". 

oh what tangled webs.....


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (5 May 2009)

What I find disturbing is the Taliban _could_ be actually coming here in a deceptive move to set up here. Obfuscation and doublespeak can help achieve that. Has it been considered by the policy makers?


----------



## Calanen (5 May 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> What I find disturbing is the Taliban _could_ be actually coming here in a deceptive move to set up here. Obfuscation and doublespeak can help achieve that. Has it been considered by the policy makers?




Well stupidly, one group of people we do let come here because they are persecuted in Egypt and elsewhere, are members of the Muslim Brotherhood. They are 'persecuted' because they believe in the destruction of secular governemnt and the imposition of sharia. But of course, they will immediately put that behind them and accept our values of freedom, democracy and interfaith tolerance from the moment they touch down on the tarmac at Mascot Airport. That's what tolerance is all about - it magically converts anyone that hates us into people that support our system, and who will so respect our tolerance to the extent that they will immediately jettison their 1400 year old belief system in favour of our limp wristed apologism. 

No way they would see such beliefs as weakness, oh contraire, they would respect the strength shown by such a position.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (5 May 2009)

Below is a quote from an article by Alan Jones on the topic. 


> Now if the Government doesn't want the Pacific solution of holding people in Nauru and Papua New Guinea and letting them know that they can't set foot in Australia because, as the Howard Government said, we'll decide who comes here, if the Pacific solution is unacceptable, *what then is the Rudd  Government's solution.*




Source:http://2gb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5798&Itemid=134


----------



## Calanen (5 May 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Below is a quote from an article by Alan Jones on the topic.
> 
> that they can't set foot in Australia because, as the Howard Government said, we'll decide who comes here,* if the Pacific solution is unacceptable, what then is the Rudd Government's solution.*
> Source:http://2gb.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5798&Itemid=134




Why it's let as many people into this country as we possibly can, no matter what their ideology or beliefs, level of education, or commitment to Australia, because we know that anyone who wants to immigrate to this country is:

- very loyal to Australia;
- very loyal to democracy;
- is very hard working and will make a tremendous commitment to the country;
- is very loyal to our system of laws;
- respects the equality of women;
- respects our belief in freedom of religion;
- shares all of our values and beliefs.

and as we know that ALL immigrants from anywhere, regardless of their background have all of the above values  in abundant measure, and that anyone who dares to suggest to the contrary, or even to check whether this is the case, is a racist, nazi, hater. 

So problem solved really - there is nothing left to discuss. Just ask them, if its not too much trouble, to form an orderly queue at Telstra Stadium to be handed their Australiana Showbag - which contains 1 Australian passport, 1 housing commission lease, 1 unemployment benefit card and 1 Medicare Card.


----------



## helicart (5 May 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> What I find disturbing is the Taliban _could_ be actually coming here in a deceptive move to set up here. Obfuscation and doublespeak can help achieve that. Has it been considered by the policy makers?




Well, the frenzy the left made about letting Al Queda in was deafening so the Taliban would be a shoe in........HEY.....no throwing shoes......  

I refer to the one and only....................

DAVID HICKS

You see, a guy isn't a security threat unless someone, no make that at least 2 someones cos David Marr would want even more proof, nope, better make that two non military someones (cos military types are all radical fascists that can't be trusted to uphold people's human rights), witnessed the guy cutting off someone's head in real life (cos videos can be doctored), or partially succeeded in blowing himself up in the vicinity of innocents (but not Coalition troops)...... 

Even when Hicks admits he was fighting with Al Queda to stop Coalition troops (which could have included Aussies), the Left still think he is an innocent, unaccountable for his actions, and if we just let him back to Dad, ex, kids, and vegemite, then he will surely see the error of his ways and forego his faith.....  

I bet the Talibanis wouldn't be so two faced.....no sirreeeee.....all the way with Allah BJ.....  (Booommmm Job)


----------



## helicart (5 May 2009)

Calanen said:


> - is very loyal to our system of laws;
> - respects the equality of women;




This site is always worth a browse to sort the hay from the chaff....can't be accused of vilification or profiling either.....just the facts ma'm, just the facts...

http://www.vic.crimestoppers.com.au/unsolvedcrimes.aspx


----------



## Calanen (5 May 2009)

Europe already has been overwhelmed by a flood of immigrants:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU


----------



## rederob (5 May 2009)

First, I don't have to prove anything because my stance in this thread is about Australia (as a wealthy nation) accepting an increased share of refugees.
On the other hand you seem to be arguing a case that our migrant intakes are not beneficial and, in the main, are doing it from an economic standpoint.  I have not seen you present any gross data suggesting migration has been detrimental, or will be in future.
It is surprising, given the search powers of the internet, that you have not done a better job presenting your case.
Perhaps if you can encapsulate your premises in something more succinct - a chart or table - it will be easier to digest than the "how everything ties together" approach you have taken to date.
I promise to provide data that could well surprise you, but am giving you an opportunity to get in first; Hope that's fair.


----------



## helicart (5 May 2009)

Calanen said:


> Europe already has been overwhelmed by a flood of immigrants:
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU




Says it all doesn't it Cal......




rederob said:


> Perhaps if you can encapsulate your premises in something more succinct - a chart or table - it will be easier to digest than the "how everything ties together" approach you have taken to date.




Anyone else who valued his time and energy, and had a cost benefit analysis running in the back of his mind wouldn't be engaging you still Red.
My mission isn't to convert you to my way of thinking.....just to prompt you to elaborate your views, and let others then judge them on their merits, or lack thereof.


----------



## rederob (5 May 2009)

helicart said:


> Anyone else who valued his time and energy, and had a cost benefit analysis running in the back of his mind wouldn't be engaging you still Red.
> My mission isn't to convert you to my way of thinking.....just to prompt you to elaborate your views, and let others then judge them on their merits, or lack thereof.



You have invested many words in this thread and there is little to hang your hat on.
Here's your chance to prove your worth.
Would you prefer I went first?


----------



## Calanen (5 May 2009)

rederob said:


> First, I don't have to prove anything because my stance in this thread is about Australia (as a wealthy nation) accepting an increased share of refugees.




We are not a wealthy nation, in many ways. We are just on a large continent with a small population that is having its mineral wealth stripped and sold off to the highest bidder, with the people it belongs to, the population getting very little in return. Living here after the minerals run out will not be a lot of fun.


> On the other hand you seem to be arguing a case that our migrant intakes are not beneficial and, in the main, are doing it from an economic standpoint.




The reason for immigration is that capital has run out of labour, so it needs it from wherever it can get it. The problem is that in the last 20 years, in the main, we have been importing from the Middle East and Africa people who subscribe to an ideology that is sworn to deliver our destruction. Why that is a sensible policy - nobody can tell me - other than it is about 'tolerance'. 



> I have not seen you present any gross data suggesting migration has been detrimental, or will be in future.




And you never will - because the people who collect the data want further immigration to fuel the capitalist machine. By and large they want poorly educated people that the politicians can easily manipulate and control - or so they think - but they have let in a cancer that will destroy them unless it is cut out quickly.



> It is surprising, given the search powers of the internet, that you have not done a better job presenting your case.




And what case is that. Why is bringing people against our secular way of life, against democracy, for warfare to overthrow our government in our interest? Why is bringing people here who cannot speak English, and stacking them into government departments to provide even more useless levels of service in our interest? 

Data is manipulated and not collected, suppressed in the 'national interest' to keep the great multicultist lie going. But everyone is going to know the truth soon enough. It's all around them.


----------



## rederob (5 May 2009)

Calanen
I enjoy it most when people are able to substantiate their points of view.
Are you up to it?


----------



## Calanen (5 May 2009)

The majority of my discussions on the internetz are met with repeats of conventional wisdom chanted as mantras, backed with no facts or evidence. Anyone who disagrees with these catchphrase statements - must be by definition a fool - because what is said is not supported, or argued, or believed it is _known_ as an absolute truth.

But say what you need to and we'll see.


----------



## Bobby (5 May 2009)

rederob said:


> Calanen
> I enjoy it most when people are able to substantiate their points of view.
> Are you up to it?




Most do  your problem is you were told not to keep doing it or you'd go blind


----------



## helicart (5 May 2009)

rederob said:


> Calanen
> I enjoy it most when people are able to substantiate their points of view.
> Are you up to it?




The only substantiation I recall you have posted is this link 
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/3415.02008?OpenDocument
to all of the ABS's data cubes in this post..... 
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=426051&postcount=121
Not very substantive Red. 


I gave something less camouflaged here.....
https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=426068&postcount=123

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@...add06363e841654eca2570ec001971cc!OpenDocument

http://www.smh.com.au/news/business...ic-magic-bullet/2006/02/03/1138958908140.html


----------



## rederob (5 May 2009)

helicart
You have a chance to neatly wrap up your case.
If you prefer the retrospective, then so be it.
Just remember the principal them of your posts is an economic argument.


----------



## rederob (5 May 2009)

Calanen said:


> The majority of my discussions on the internetz are met with repeats of conventional wisdom chanted as mantras, backed with no facts or evidence. Anyone who disagrees with these catchphrase statements - must be by definition a fool - because what is said is not supported, or argued, or believed it is _known_ as an absolute truth.
> 
> But say what you need to and we'll see.



Your rants are more ill conceived than helicart's.
I don't expect you will be a meaningful contributor:  Although I do appreciate you have made a better attempt than Bobby or Snake.


----------



## Calanen (5 May 2009)

rederob said:


> Your rants are more ill conceived than helicart's.




In your 'opinion'. That's not a fact. And it's an opinion you have because my world view does not accord with your own.



> I don't expect you will be a meaningful contributor:  Although I do appreciate you have made a better attempt than Bobby or Snake.




Then you cannot be disappointed if you expect nothing.


----------



## helicart (5 May 2009)

rederob said:


> helicart
> You have a chance to neatly wrap up your case.
> If you prefer the retrospective, then so be it.
> Just remember the principal them of your posts is an economic argument.




Not necessarily a pure economic argument. 

I did mention I was open to migration, and accept that it was beneficial pre 75.....when there was lots of manual work around and no welfare.....and people didn't cross 5 countries to get here in a leaky boat, claiming some BS story about seeking asylum, when they had asylum in Pakistan, Iran, and Indonesia, where they would be with like mindeds. How anyone can believe these people are legitimate asylum seekers makes me LOL. They want $$$$....



Processing illegal border breachers is an economic cost. 
Accepting people who cannot speak english and are uneducated becomes an economic cost. 
Migrants who are challenged to integrate are an economic cost via govt services, concessions for their culture in public assets (prayer rooms in hospitals, community rooms in universities, SBS, etc), overrepresenation in crime, ethnic tensions between migrants, lack of understanding of our laws by people who just stepped out of extremely primitive cultures (Sudanese) that hold women in a different light...and are overrepresented in crimes against aussie women.

Aussies have no clue what multiculti is. 
They think Lygon St and Cleveland St are multi culti.....hahahaha
Though Box Hill Shopping Centre is fast becoming multi culti.


----------



## Calanen (5 May 2009)

> Accepting people who cannot speak english and are uneducated becomes an economic cost.




Accepting people who are committed to your destruction becomes an enormous cost, and one that may mean the end of our civilisation. But for the multicultists, that price is acceptable. Is it for everyone else? I don't think we ever got to vote on it.


----------



## rederob (5 May 2009)

Access Economics was commissioned to update its Migrants’ Fiscal Impact Model which provides a detailed profile of the effect of new migrants to Australia on the Commonwealth government budget, both in terms of revenues and outlays.  The table below shows that most migrant categories provide an immediate economic benefit to our nation. The reference data (2006-07 migrant intake) estimates a net benefit over $0.5b in the first year, increasing steadily thereafter.  The humanitarian intake is estimated to be fiscally positive after 12 years.


----------



## Bobby (5 May 2009)

rederob said:


> Your rants are more ill conceived than helicart's.
> I don't expect you will be a meaningful contributor:  Although I do appreciate you have made a better attempt than Bobby or Snake.




Come on boy , answer some of the retorts ? 
No need to hide now :hide: 
Just answer Helicarts points , Gees you can't even tell us HOW many boats are enough for you ?


----------



## helicart (5 May 2009)

Calanen said:


> Accepting people who are committed to your destruction becomes an enormous cost, and one that may mean the end of our civilisation. But for the multicultists, that price is acceptable. Is it for everyone else? I don't think we ever got to vote on it.





It is part of the Marxist grand plan, to divide and conquer the masses....kill religion and any form of identity apart from that garnered from belief in the State. 

The goal of social progressive Marxists has always been to break down predominant binding Judeo Christian values, because strong religious belief  (and cultural identity) is the greatest source of resistance to the supreme power sought by a socialist State. 

China has been doing this in Tibet. It is breaking Tibetan cultural and religious identity, then flooding it with another culture and race....Sound familiar????

You will always find left wing social progressives behind multiculti initiatives....because they don't believe in nor respect the history of their own culture. They are essentially guilt ridden and believe all resources should be split equitably with no consideration for the effort individuals make.

Now I am not against migration carte blanche. I just want it in a controlled format that doesn't threaten the std of living, rule of law, or predominant culture. There is no successful example of multiculturalism anywhere. And if there is economic difficulties ahead, with scaricty of resources, race and cultural differences will fuel internal strife like Australia has not seen before. 

Red has continued to deny the lessons unfolding in Europe and California.....for his own subversive purposes I suspect.


----------



## Bobby (5 May 2009)

helicart said:


> .
> 
> Red has continued to deny the lessons unfolding in Europe and California.....for his own subversive purposes I suspect.




Not sure about ( subversive purposes )  could just be a ultra left wing Public Servant


----------



## rederob (5 May 2009)

As can be seen from the below chart, refugee/humanitarian intakes have almost halved as a proportion of the total migrant intake over the past 10 years.  These same 10 years were very prosperous for our nation.
My position is that we can afford to do better.  Moreover, I consider it inappropriate for us to actually profit from migration on an ongoing basis, which is suggested by the data.


----------



## helicart (5 May 2009)

rederob said:


> Access Economics was commissioned to update its Migrants’ Fiscal Impact Model which provides a detailed profile of the effect of new migrants to Australia on the Commonwealth government budget, both in terms of revenues and outlays.  The table below shows that most migrant categories provide an immediate economic benefit to our nation. The reference data (2006-07 migrant intake) estimates a net benefit over $0.5b in the first year, increasing steadily thereafter.  The humanitarian intake is estimated to be fiscally positive after 12 years.





hehehehe.....wow, that's a great operating surplus.....NOT...and all hinging on the 25 of family assets brought into the country in yr1.....which presumably goes towards a house and not into job creation. 

what about State and LGA budgets? 
what % of locals do migrants displace from work onto welfare?
do migrants drive up the cost of housing by competing for an undersupply due to the surplus they generate not being enough to provide infrastructure?

12 years to be fiscally positive isn't exactly what you argued earlier in the thread, Red!!!!

keep digging Red. You might even get some figures that say out net foreign liabilities aren't increasing...


----------



## rederob (5 May 2009)

helicart said:


> Red has continued to deny the lessons unfolding in Europe and California.....for his own subversive purposes I suspect.



If we were landlocked to Asia I might agree there was an unfolding case.  We are quite dissimilar, as your posts emphasise for asylum seekers in terms of effort.


----------



## haunting (5 May 2009)

rederob,

Keep it up. I am with you.

Cheers.


----------



## helicart (5 May 2009)

keep digging for an update for family concessional and preferential unemployment rates Red.


----------



## Bobby (5 May 2009)

The boats loads illegally arriving rederob ! thats what this thread is all about  
Time to get back on track now .
Get a grasp man on reality, not time for dreams .


----------



## rederob (5 May 2009)

helicart said:


> 12 years to be fiscally positive isn't exactly what you argued earlier in the thread, Red!!!!



I'm always pleased when others show I erred....so where was that posted?


----------



## doctorj (5 May 2009)

helicart, do you have anything to support your argument beyond biased empirical observations and conjecture?  Rederob has managed to put a $ on the benefit of migration, what have you got?


----------



## helicart (5 May 2009)

While you are on a google role Red, how about elaborating the drop in the caucasian Australian birth rate.


----------



## helicart (5 May 2009)

Red, then find out if the cost of border patrol and detention camps are factored into the net operating surplus.

Whoops, here's another one
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25432680-601,00.html


----------



## rederob (5 May 2009)

Bobby said:


> The boats loads illegally arriving rederob ! thats what this thread is all about
> Time to get back on track now .
> Get a grasp man on reality, not time for dreams .



I don't like liars, cheats, or willful lawbreakers.
You have already proven yourself in this thread.
And in case you don't understand, there are well established conventions relating to asylum which we are required to uphold.  I would bet London to a brick that if a boat load of white-skinned boat people were seeking asylum from persecution in Fiji that you would welcome them with open arms.
I am happy to let the law play out.  If they are proven to be illegal, they will be deported - Fijian, Tamil, Cuban, Myanmar, or whatever.


----------



## helicart (5 May 2009)

doctorj said:


> Rederob has managed to put a $ on the benefit of migration, what have you got?




Red has a thermos of coffee and is madly googling away tonight. 
I've already pointed out the inadequacy of the figures he has dragged up.

BTW, it has taken Red over a week and 40 posts to find some figures and start to read some economics literature....he mentioned an economics term today for the first time - BoP....but BoP doesn't disclose the nitty gritty details Red....

Mine were up over a week ago.....but don't let your bias get in the way DrJ.....seems you have a lot riding on Red's googling skills....maybe you can help him if you feel strongly enough about it.


----------



## rederob (6 May 2009)

helicart said:


> BTW, it has taken Red over a week and 40 posts to find some figures and start to read some economics literature....he mentioned an economics term today for the first time - BoP....but BoP doesn't disclose the nitty gritty details Red....



You need to make fewer assumptions than you do, and you might become more credible.
I have been more than happy for you to present a cogent case.  As the thread progressed, I became equally happy for you to degenerate, as you did.
Each time you get caught out you change the rules.
What I said at the outset, and have continued to say throughout, is now shown through tonight's posts to be a fair approach to the migration issue.
By the way, when you rethink post 245 you might realise the massive miscalculation you made (post 250) - quite unforgivable actually, although I will concede to you some humanity.


----------



## disarray (6 May 2009)

rederob said:


> As can be seen from the below chart, refugee/humanitarian intakes have almost halved as a proportion of the total migrant intake over the past 10 years.  These same 10 years were very prosperous for our nation.
> My position is that we can afford to do better.  Moreover, I consider it inappropriate for us to actually profit from migration on an ongoing basis, which is suggested by the data.




yes i think you're starting to get it. migration is beneficial to society, our migration policy is largely skill based, so skill based migration is beneficial to our society. no one is arguing against that.

your facts and figures are all "net migration". no one is arguing against "migration". however migration should be selectively sourced so it provides a benefit to society. migrants who follow intolerant ideologies or come from incompatible cultures for example do not benefit society. the facts, figures and points others have posted in this thread clearly point to the fact that migrant intakes from certain sources are undesirable for wider society. seriously, how hard is it for you to understand?

p.s. well done on finding some sources. it's been a long time coming.


----------



## Bobby (6 May 2009)

rederob said:


> I don't like liars, cheats, or willful lawbreakers.
> You have already proven yourself in this thread.
> .




  Lets see Hay , I work for myself ,    when I post its in my time , no cost to the public purse .
Can you say the same when posting    ?


----------



## helicart (6 May 2009)

rederob said:


> You need to make fewer assumptions than you do, and you might become more credible.
> I have been more than happy for you to present a cogent case.  As the thread progressed, I became equally happy for you to degenerate, as you did.
> 
> Each time you get caught out you change the rules.
> What I said at the outset, and have continued to say throughout, is now shown through tonight's posts to be a fair approach to the migration issue.




hehehehehe ....Poppyscock......this is what you said at the outset....

If there was a queue to begin with, I suspect many would have taken their turn.
Most refugees continue to be accepted into countries which can least afford to support them.
Unfortunately we here have many empty vessels making a lot of noise about vessels full of *people * who, given the chance, would quietly go about making a new life in Australia.  
We can afford to be more generous, but the political backlash from xenophobes will ensure our shores remain largely unwashed by the unwashed.

You have never elaborated the cost to Australia of processing and proving boat people's motives and history. It is an impossible task and one that lawyers and bureaucrats would love to expand, all good mulah for them yes? 

According to you Red, anyone who thinks there's a limit to how many humanitarian refugees might be absorbed by Australia, is a xenophobe....hahahahaha.....always easier to use smug moral superiority to shut the debate down hey?

3 Billion people would qualify for asylum according to the flea brains who wrote and interpret the Status of refugees drivel.....

_"Every person has the         right to live  free from persecution, or the fear of persecution,         based on        their race, religion,           nationality, membership in a particular           social group, or political opinion. Though every government is obligated to provide this         right, many fail. Every year millions of people face persecution for         traits they cannot control         or exercising their religious or political beliefs. When governments           fail to protect these rights, people have the right to move to a country           that will protect them. This is         the right to           *asylum*. People who seek to exercise this right are           called "asylum seekers" or, in some cases, "refugees." In       1951, the formal basis for exercising the right to asylum was established       by       an interational treaty, the Geneva Convention           Relating to the Status of Refugees. Countries signing that Convention           have an obligation to provide asylum or refuge to people fleeing persecution." _

By this, every Tibetan who rolled up in a boat in Aussie's top left corner would have to be granted citizenship, and the same for every Muslim homosexual or adulterer, every Sunni from Iran, every Shiite from Iraq, every non Muslim from Sudan, every Christian from Aceh, every Hazara and all women from Afghanistan, all women from Somalia, anyone from Zimbabwe or Lebanon, anyone from a country that has overpopulated via ignorance and lack of sexual restraint.....

As usual, the 'rights' crowd are emotional and sociopolitical naives who have never run business and created jobs, nor studied moral philosophy, nor realize adversity and struggle are motivators in the human condition........they don't understand that active rights impose active obligations on someone. They are a deluded and dangerous lot, because they dress up their underhanded money grab and theft of rights in apparent humane ideals and upholding the rights of foreigners...



rederob said:


> By the way, when you rethink post 245 you might realise the massive miscalculation you made (post 250) - quite unforgivable actually, although I will concede to you some humanity.




Don't get too smug Red. It is after all, only a MODEL.....funny that the govt, with better access to actual data and events being modeled, can't do its own modelling hey?  what do you think is behind that? rhetorical question....sorry....


----------



## rederob (6 May 2009)

helicart said:


> hehehehehe ....Poppyscock......this is what you said at the outset....
> 
> … Most refugees continue to be accepted into countries which can least afford to support them.
> ….



Tabled below is a selection of countries accepting more refugees than Australia (data sourced from UNHCR statistics):


----------



## helicart (6 May 2009)

And here's a world population clock......

http://math.berkeley.edu/~galen/popclk.html


So what holding capacity does Australia have Red.....and how many of the growing world popn do you want us to take on as humanitarian refugees?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 May 2009)

rederob said:


> As can be seen from the below chart, refugee/humanitarian intakes have almost halved as a proportion of the total migrant intake over the past 10 years.  These same 10 years were very prosperous for our nation.
> My position is that we can afford to do better.  Moreover, I consider it inappropriate for us to actually profit from migration on an ongoing basis, which is suggested by the data.






rederob said:


> Tabled below is a selection of countries accepting more refugees than Australia (data sourced from UNHCR statistics):




Sorry I've been away mixing with my mates, at MT Garnet rodeo and races, with Aussies, all composed of every race from anglocelt and indigenous to chinese, eyetie, greek, maltese and afghan and aboriginal in some measure or other. What a great country in which we live.

Red my old stirrer the graphs of the refugee intake over the last 10 years is gratifying, it occurred under John Howard who revolutionised migration to Australia. Keating and Hawke for political reasons let in some folk who have little allegiance to Australia and allegedly now contribute to much organised crime. 

Now that the Ruddmeister and Labor are in, that graph will change in years to come, for the worse.

The table of the countries accepting more refugees than us is a bit disingenous. Many of the refugees they accept are tribal brothers and sisters from neighbouring states. The countries referred to are in many cases artificial ones set up by the Poms in the 19th century and after both world wars, so the table is meaningless. Its mostly a redistribution of minorities in to their tribal majority state.

gg

Keep up the good work Red. You make some sense.

gg


----------



## helicart (6 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Keep up the good work Red. You make some sense.
> 
> gg




You see now Red?......when you get the migration rate optimized, guys like GG in towns like Townsville, don't have any trouble with them. But if the rate gets too high and migrants prefer to form ethnic enclaves in the capitals (maybe not enough work in Townsville), then that's a different kettle of whitebait.


----------



## rederob (6 May 2009)

helicart
I put a challenge to you that remains unmet.




> Unfortunately we here have many empty vessels making a lot of noise...



...still resonates.


----------



## helicart (6 May 2009)

rederob said:


> helicart
> I put a challenge to you that remains unmet.
> 
> 
> ...still resonates.




Come on Red, that's the defence you use when you don't want to meet the challenge of the questions I have thrown at you time and again.....

No doubt, after a couple of weeks of rumination, you'll muster the motivation to get back to google and selectively answer the ones you find convenient half answers for.

Until then, enjoy the noise within.


----------



## Julia (6 May 2009)

Rederob, many of the countries in your table are more than a bit dysfunctional.  It's a bit hard to see how they can support refugees, given they barely cope with their own population.

As gg points out, much of this will be drift from one mess into another.
(apologies for a bit of paraphrasing there, gg.)


----------



## weird (6 May 2009)

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12276a.htm

"a problem not of excessive fecundity, but of race suicide" (Seligman, "Principles of Economics", 65).


----------



## rederob (6 May 2009)

helicart said:


> Come on Red, that's the defence you use when you don't want to meet the challenge of the questions I have thrown at you time and again.....



I have defended most of the points I raised.
I could have done a better job on "crime" if better data existed - but it doesn't.
When you show an ability to defend what you you spruik, we might then be able to move on to other questions of relevance.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (6 May 2009)

rederob said:


> I have defended most of the points I raised.
> I could have done a better job on "crime" if better data existed - but it doesn't.
> When you show an ability to defend what you you spruik, we might then be able to move on to other questions of relevance.




Would you care to comment Red on my criticism of your table of states which take more migrants than Australia?

gg


----------



## Glen48 (6 May 2009)

Forget GFC :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU


----------



## rederob (7 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Would you care to comment Red on my criticism of your table of states which take more migrants than Australia?
> 
> gg



It's your opinion.


----------



## helicart (7 May 2009)

Further points Red has no answers for. 

*Put Africans out of city, say police*
*POLICE are advising the Immigration Department for the first time about how and where to settle troubled African refugees.*
               Senior Victorian police have urged the department to settle Sudanese families in country towns such as Mildura and Sale, away from suburban Melbourne where young African men are being caught up in street crime. 
_The Australian _understands that police first appealed to immigration officials last year following a spike in criminal activity among young Sudanese men, while Chief Commissioner Christine Nixon was attempting to play down the problem..........continued


*Fewer volunteers in migrant suburbs*
MIGRANTS from non-English speaking countries are less likely to be volunteers than Australian-born people or migrants from English-speaking nations, a new study shows.
      Ethnically diverse neighbourhoods have lower levels of volunteering  - even among their Australian-born residents.
 The study, by Ernest Healy, senior research fellow at the Centre for Population and Urban Research at Monash University, challenges the notion that ethnic diversity leads to a stronger, more cohesive society.
 "When you create societies from mixed backgrounds it may not lead to overt violence … but to something scarier, a withdrawal from the civic sphere," Dr Healy said, "a feeling of less connectedness." continued....




*Bradfield Race Riots, Cronulla Riots*

When elites try and impose ideologically and politically driven migration policy on the electorate, that adversely effects the working classes, then the outcome can be nothing less. The Marxists and exploitative or guilt ridden cultureless elites can rant and rave all they like and call the whole working class xenophobes, but ultimately, when the migration rate and mix threatens the way of life for the majority,  $hIte happens. 





*We are not an ageing population, we are a population lacking the confidence to reproduce. 
*
That is a serious issue not understood or addressed by the media and elites. At least Malcolm Turnbull has it front and centre..


“_This phenomenon has been described as an `ageing population’. That is a glib and slippery euphemism. Societies such as those in Italy, Spain, Greece, Russia and many others in Europe with birth rates of 1.3 or lower are not ageing, they are dying. A population with a birth rate of 1.3 will, absent immigration, shrink by 75 per cent over 100 years. This would mean that if Italy, for example, has the same population in a century as it does today, less than a quarter of that future population will be the descendants of today’s Italians._
_Can it be true that at the peak of our technology and prosperity the western world is losing the confidence to reproduce itself? Are we witnessing the beginning of the dying of the west?_”

Red and other multicultis prefer not to address this issue, and not have govt spend money on programs to turn this around. Instead, money goes to outsourcing the birth rate.


----------



## Calliope (7 May 2009)

Glen48 said:


> Forget GFC :
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6-3X5hIFXYU




That's pretty scary stuff. Immigration controls have been very lax.  Things will change however when Islam takes control in Europe. No more infidels will be allowed in.


----------



## Calanen (8 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> That's pretty scary stuff. Immigration controls have been very lax.  Things will change however when Islam takes control in Europe. No more infidels will be allowed in.




We just have to make sure it does not take control here.


----------



## Happy (8 May 2009)

Calanen said:


> We just have to make sure it does not take control here.




Just wander what would be the best way to do it?

Out leaders seem to split them in extremists and your average peace loving ones.

Democracy allows any religion to be here, from memory we have 140+ different religions officially registered here.

If anybody has hidden agenda, all we can do is have friendly insiders who can break this conspiracy.
Otherwise it is doomest doomish doom.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (8 May 2009)

This thread is full of peoples ideas, limited by their ability to say what they think because of political correctness.

This is one of the wins that Keating had.

Remember you are muzzled.

Everything posted has to be couched in pc mode.

So it is not a clear indication of peoples ideas.

gg


----------



## Calliope (8 May 2009)

Happy said:


> Just wander what would be the best way to do it?
> 
> Out leaders seem to split them in extremists and your average peace loving ones.
> 
> ...




The Italians have got the right idea at last. Send them back to where they departed from, even if it does upset the so called 'human rights' people. Naturally the illegals don't want to live in Libya with their fellow Moslems. Welfare handouts are not so hot there.

*Libya accepts boat people back from Italy*


> LIBYA for the first time has agreed to take back boat people picked up off its shores by Italian vessels, prompting concern among human rights and humanitarian groups.
> In what Italian interior minister Roberto Maroni hailed as an "historic day" in the fight against illegal immigration, three Italian navy launches ferried 227 boat people into the port of Tripoli today.
> 
> According to Italian aid agency CIR, three of the women were pregnant and had to be taken to hospital on arrival at Tripoli.
> ...


----------



## Calanen (8 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This thread is full of peoples ideas, limited by their ability to say what they think because of political correctness.
> 
> This is one of the wins that Keating had.
> 
> ...




I've been accused of many things, but being PC, is not one of them.


----------



## Calliope (8 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Rederob, many of the countries in your table are more than a bit dysfunctional.  It's a bit hard to see how they can support refugees, given they barely cope with their own population.
> 
> As gg points out, much of this will be drift from one mess into another.
> (apologies for a bit of paraphrasing there, gg.)




Julia, 
In his post Rederob uses the words;



> Tabled below is a selection of countries accepting more refugees than Australia



 The word "accepting " is used loosely. Most of these countries no more *accept* the floods of refugees than we would *accept* a gatecrasher into our home.


----------



## Julia (8 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> Julia,
> In his post Rederob uses the words;
> 
> 
> The word "accepting " is used loosely. Most of these countries no more *accept* the floods of refugees than we would *accept* a gatecrasher into our home.



Yes, I quite realise that.  It's why I questioned the capacity of those countries to *support* refugees.


----------



## Spanning Tree (8 May 2009)

> A line needs to be drawn, otherwise refugees will flood into Australia, and as previously stated - we simply don't have the infrastructure for it.



The current problem with Australia is that there aren't enough people. It is important that Australia has more people to pay taxes to fund our ageing population. This is the reason why the government has focused on immigration and efforts to boost fertility (e.g. Baby Bonus). Infrastructure can only be built if the government has revenue from taxation to fund it. Government will only get the revenue from taxation if there are workers.

Ideally, I believe that in order to continue to attract good workers, welfare needs to be reduced or abolished completely. This not stops some migrants from taking advantage of the system but also Australian-born citizens from doing the same.


----------



## Spanning Tree (10 May 2009)

disarray said:
			
		

> this is incorrect. there are many concentrations of welfare dependents amongst various ethnic enclaves. bankstown, fairfield, springvale - all with high concentrations of ethnic minorities and higher than average rates of long term welfare dependence.
> 
> the most common line is "white australians use more welfare, commit more crime etc. etc." however this totally fails to take into account the size of the white population compared to other racial groups.




So what are you suggesting, that immigration policy be determined by race. E.g. if you are white then X, if you are black then Y, etc?

The first problem with this is that it is impossible to really know someone's race. I have a friend from Africa. My dad thinks he is black but he told me that in Africa most people there think he is white.

Another problem with race-based policies is that it sets a dangerous precedent. What you are saying is that because race A is more likely to commit crime then you must ban prevent race A from entering the country. However, men are more likely than women to commit crime, so then should government policy prevent men from entering the country? Should government policy subsidize the abortion of male foetuses to reduce crime?

Before your race-based policies can be applied you must address their obvious scientific and statistical problems.


----------



## Spanning Tree (10 May 2009)

> your facts and figures are all "net migration". no one is arguing against "migration". however migration should be selectively sourced so it provides a benefit to society. migrants who follow intolerant ideologies or come from incompatible cultures for example do not benefit society. the facts, figures and points others have posted in this thread clearly point to the fact that migrant intakes from certain sources are undesirable for wider society. seriously, how hard is it for you to understand?




I think it is interesting that you are intolerant of migrants who follow intolerant ideologies.

Furthermore, you talk about "incompatible cultures." What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting that everyone who comes into Australia or even everyone who grows up in Australia should behave in the same way, e.g. follow the same religion? Isn't this an intolerant ideology?



> That's pretty scary stuff. Immigration controls have been very lax. Things will change however when Islam takes control in Europe. No more infidels will be allowed in.
> We just have to make sure it does not take control here.



What have you got against Islam? Islam is very similar to Christianity and 70% of Australians are Christians.


----------



## disarray (10 May 2009)

Spanning Tree said:


> The current problem with Australia is that there aren't enough people. It is important that Australia has more people to pay taxes to fund our ageing population.




but where is the line drawn? how many people can this nation support? so we just keep stuffing more and more people into the country until when? 



> Ideally, I believe that in order to continue to attract good workers, welfare needs to be reduced or abolished completely. This not stops some migrants from taking advantage of the system but also Australian-born citizens from doing the same.




i agree with this. everyone should work. plant trees, dig holes, weave baskets, answer phones, further your education - the free ride mentality has to go.



> So what are you suggesting, that immigration policy be determined by race. E.g. if you are white then X, if you are black then Y, etc?




well race is a bit shallow, but i understand its something that much easier for people to get on their high horse about. i'd suggest more along the lines of culture and ideology. for example immigrants from sudan and lebanese muslims have extremely high rates of welfare dependence, criminality, and many possess attitude that are hostile to our way of life. has any anthopological research been conducted into the cultural framework of these societies and considered how they would interact with our own? where is the advantage for wider society in sourcing further immigrants from these areas when they have statistically proven to have trouble integrating?



> Another problem with race-based policies is that it sets a dangerous precedent.




and problems with open policies also set a dangerous precedent. europe is in a shocking state at the moment because of their naive approach to importing large numbers of uneducated peasants from parts of the world that have vastly different cultural values and ideologies to the west. there are numerous social problems in the major european capitals with immigrants including no-go areas, obscene amounts of rape, honour killings, riots that last for weeks and open calls for the destruction of the west, execution of homosexuals and jews and the implemetation of sharia law. these are major problems that must be acknowledged and addressed but instead people still insist on pretending it's not happening and we're all one big happy welfare state funded family. 



> What you are saying is that because race A is more likely to commit crime then you must ban prevent race A from entering the country.




at the very least their numbers should be severely limited and their settlement closely managed and preferably dispersed to prevent ghettoisation and associated anti-social behaviours. or yeah, just don't let them in the first place.



> However, men are more likely than women to commit crime, so then should government policy prevent men from entering the country? Should government policy subsidize the abortion of male foetuses to reduce crime?




now you're just being stupid. we have the right to manage our population in a way which is in the best interests of wider society, not just the ego and guilt of certain ideological elitists.



> Before your race-based policies can be applied you must address their obvious scientific and statistical problems




and these problems are? statistically certain intakes have brought in large numbers of criminals, potential terrorists and welfare parasites, that's the problem. you are being far too simplistic and just waving the race card around without taking into the account the glaring problems certain immigration patterns have introduced to this country and other countries throughout the world.



> I think it is interesting that you are intolerant of migrants who follow intolerant ideologies




well unlike so many others i'm not a deluded rainbow fantasy idealist that thinks that if we all just sit down and share our feelings we'll end up in a global group hug. this utopian dreamland will never happen and to think it will (in our lifetime at least) not only displays an astounding ignorance of history but also a complete lack of understanding of human nature.



> Furthermore, you talk about "incompatible cultures." What do you mean by this?




have a look around at the state of the world. maybe you are aware that there are cultures that subjugate women and relegate them to second class citizenship, that arrange marriages with children, perform genital mutilations, accept honour killings, murder homosexuals and stand for a single totalitarian ideology that is committed to world conquest? or maybe you aren't, in which case you're going to have trouble understanding what i am saying.



> What have you got against Islam? Islam is very similar to Christianity




you are so completely and utterly wrong on this point and your ignorance on this simple and fundamental issue also impacts upon your opinions on immigration in general. if you don't know anything about islam and its ideology then you can't see how it is incompatible with western society and you definately won't be able to see why immigration policy should be taking this into account when sourcing our immigrant intake.


----------



## Spanning Tree (10 May 2009)

> i'd suggest more along the lines of culture and ideology. for example immigrants from sudan and lebanese muslims have extremely high rates of welfare dependence, criminality, and many possess attitude that are hostile to our way of life. has any anthopological research been conducted into the cultural framework of these societies and considered how they would interact with our own? where is the advantage for wider society in sourcing further immigrants from these areas when they have statistically proven to have trouble integrating?




The examples you give are Lebanese Muslims and Sudanese. These are countries and religions. Do you think Muslims should be banned from coming to Australia? What about the Muslims who are not criminals? What about the non-Muslims who are criminals?

In itself, coming from Sudan does not make you a criminal but it may make you more likely to be a criminal.

Similarly, in itself, being male does not make you a criminal but it makes you more likely to be a criminal, but like I said do you think government should subsidize abortion of male fetuses or prevent men from coming into Australia? That's the precedent I'm talking about. If you send away one group of people because they are statistically more likely to be criminals, many innocent people are going to be labeled as criminals. Every one of us belongs to an infinite number of groups. It is highly likely that at least one of the groups you belong to makes you statistically more likely to be a criminal. For example, I belong to many groups: I am male, under 30, and over six feet tall. Being male, I am statistically more like to be a criminal. Being under 30, I am statistically more likely to be a criminal. Being tall, I am statistically less likely to be a criminal. Don't you think it is unfair to blame people based on being male, being young, or being short when in of itself these characteristics do not cause criminality but may be statistically related to criminality? The same applies to religion or nationality. If you block based on religion or nationality because of statistical correlation you must also block by gender, age, and height for the same reason.



> now you're just being stupid. we have the right to manage our population in a way which is in the best interests of wider society, not just the ego and guilt of certain ideological elitists.



Managing the population in a way that best serves the interests of the society--isn't this the definition of eugenics? Is that what you suggesting?

Even if all immigrants were blocked, there will still be cultural conflict within Australia. This is because of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech allows individuals within Australia to form independent ideas or opinions that may differ to that of the mainstream. You spoke before about Lebanese Muslims. Islam as a religion may conflict with Christianity. The god in Islam is one single god whereas the god in Christianity is one god acting in three ways (the concept of the trinity). However, even within Christian teaching there is conflict, e.g. some Christians believe in the Pope while others don't. If you believe that differences in culture be resolved by holding up one single culture as the gold standard, then which is it? If not Islam, is it Christianity? But Christianity is not one unified, consistent religion. You have to be specific about what type of Christianity, whether it is Catholicism, Anglicanism, Anabaptism, Presbytarianism, Mormonism, etc.


----------



## helicart (10 May 2009)

Spanning Tree said:


> Managing the population in a way that best serves the interests of the society--isn't this the definition of eugenics? Is that what you suggesting?




So are you suggesting multiculturalism has superior social and economic outcomes to societies based on one dominant culture, or indeed, one predominant race? 

If so, provide examples.


----------



## disarray (10 May 2009)

Spanning Tree said:


> The examples you give are Lebanese Muslims and Sudanese. These are countries and religions. Do you think Muslims should be banned from coming to Australia?




their numbers should be severely limited yes. an historical study of islam, an understanding of its nature and a look at the bloody borders it maintains today leads me to believe that importing large numbers of muslims would not be healthy for our society if we wish to maintain it this way. maybe you should see how "enriched" europe has become through muslim immigration?



> What about the non-Muslims who are criminals?




deal with them through the courts, and if over time a pattern emerges that a specific group of migrants is hugely overrepresented in criminal statistics then adjust the level and implementation of their migration. effective policy must be adapable.



> Similarly, in itself, being male does not make you a criminal but it makes you more likely to be a criminal, but like I said do you think government should subsidize abortion of male fetuses or prevent men from coming into Australia?




yeah abort male foetuses, does that sound like a good idea to you? your word play and semantics is impressive but lacks common sense. the importation of large numbers of uneducated culturally incompatible people into liberal western democracies has been proven to be detrimental for the wider society. you can twist words and philosophise till the cows come home but it doesn't change the simple facts on the ground.

in reality its all about looking at the facts and managing the policy based on what is actually happening, not what we wish was happening.



> If you send away one group of people because they are statistically more likely to be criminals, many innocent people are going to be labeled as criminals.




well we're not actually sending anyone away, we are preventing them from entering, and we have the right and the responsibility to do what is best for our society first. maybe you can tell me - what is the magic number of lousy immigrants we have to tolerate? say we take in 100 immigrants and statistically X amount are criminals and Y amount are welfare dependent and Z amount follow an ideology that thinks its ok to impose their own value systems on society - how many should we tolerate for the sake of tolerance?



> Every one of us belongs to an infinite number of groups. It is highly likely that at least one of the groups you belong to makes you statistically more likely to be a criminal. Don't you think it is unfair to blame people based on being male, being young, or being short when in of itself these characteristics do not cause criminality but may be statistically related to criminality?




this is just playing word games. we have statistics available that certain groups are X amount more likely to be criminals and Y amount more likely to be drains on society (although they are very difficult to dig up because they aren't "in the public interest"). sensible policy would be to not import more of these groups that have a higher tendency towards anti-social behaviour. there are plenty of immigrant sources who have successfully integrated into wider australian society over long periods of time - why not continue with a working formula? and as for those that are already here, then policy will need to be created to manage them, even though people will cry racism.

and once again our right to manage who comes into this country supercedes the right of foreigners free access to our society. from immigration policy to border defence it is our right to say who shall come in, how many can come and how they should arrive /cue john howard.



> The same applies to religion or nationality. If you block based on religion or nationality because of statistical correlation you must also block by gender, age, and height for the same reason.




why?



> Managing the population in a way that best serves the interests of the society--isn't this the definition of eugenics? Is that what you suggesting?




yeah i'm down for eugenics. eugenics is a big word though with many layers. do you think retards should breed if they will have retarded children? do you think we should import large numbers of radicalised militants who think honour killings are a-ok and your daughter deserved to be raped if she wears a mini skirt? you know, cats and uncovered meat and all that.



> Even if all immigrants were blocked, there will still be cultural conflict within Australia. This is because of freedom of speech. Freedom of speech allows individuals within Australia to form independent ideas or opinions that may differ to that of the mainstream.




yup thats cool, but thats an in-house problem for us to manage. this thread is about importing cultural conflicts from outside australia.



> Islam as a religion may conflict with Christianity. The god in Islam is one single god whereas the god in Christianity is one god acting in three ways (the concept of the trinity). However, even within Christian teaching there is conflict




look you can tu coque all you want about christianity, but if you have any knowledge of islam you know that it is fundamentally different from christianity (or any other religion) in very important way. islam isn't just a religion - it is a complete social, financial and ideological system divinely mandated to spread, conquer and impose its values upon the entire planet.

this is where all the "oh the crusades", "the bible is evil too", "but what about so and so" arguments fall down - no other religion is a complete system designed to control every facet of a person life and take over the whole world. islam is, and this is why its dangerous. and finally people are starting to wake up to the fact.


----------



## Julia (10 May 2009)

disarray said:


> yeah abort male foetuses, does that sound like a good idea to you? your word play and semantics is impressive but lacks common sense



Spanning Tree, I have to agree with disarray's comment above.  You are attempting to muddy the waters with emotive meanderings.
I don't even agree with disarray that your word play is impressive.

I'm curious to know the background of your impassioned support of the import to Australia of cultures incompatible with our own.   What, specifically, do you feel Muslims from societies opposed to western ideology have to contribute to Australia?


----------



## Calanen (10 May 2009)

> Paying the tax we pay is a result of government inefficiency. Minorities or illegal immigrants/asylum seekers? We're not talking about minorities, and I'd be surprised if they were over-represented anyway.




About 60% of the budget is welfare payments. I certainly could use a 60% income tax cut. Then on top of that amount is the bureaucracy that administers the welfare. Get rid of welfare, get rid of a huge burden on people who actually want to work. Living on welfare has become a lifestyle choice to 'opt out' of working now. I don't mind people who want to opt out, but not with my money. End the welfare state. Or, if you do not want to end the welfare state - we could make it optional so _your_ taxes go to fund it.

Why should I pay for some ingrates to live in a housing commission home, drink beer and watch cricket all day? Screw that. I'd get them all out on a chain gang working on the highways at gunpoint.


----------



## Calanen (10 May 2009)

> this is where all the "oh the crusades", "the bible is evil too", "but what about so and so" arguments fall down - no other religion is a complete system designed to control every facet of a person life and take over the whole world. islam is, and this is why its dangerous. and finally people are starting to wake up to the fact.




This is correct. Importing Islam here is a bit like importing former Nazis from the Third Reich, but instead of asking them to renounce supremacism, we tell them to enjoy their rich diversity. Their culture that we have to have 'tolerance' for, has no tolerance for us. It says we have to live as their slaves or dhimmis, and that they must spend every waking day, acting to destroy our government, courts, laws, culture, beliefs, religion and institutions - which are all an abomination and vile in the eyes of allah. There is only one system, the perfect system - a divine system - sharia. Everything else must be smashed for the glory of allah.

Guess who is right in the way for a good smashing on the road to jihad?

I understand though that the hard core lefties will never get it. They wouldn't get it if someone drove a car bomb into their living room screaming allah akbar - they'd still convince themselves it was mossad impersonating some muslims. 

The people I need to get the message too - are the good middle class folk - who just don't know any better. They've been spun a web of intricate lies about the supposedly benign nature of Islam - which largely came about at America's behest to keep the Saudi Kingdom happy and the flow of petroleum going. That deal has to end - so the bargain with the devil does too.

Wherever Islam is, there is violence and warfare against non-muslims. This is because, Islam says, that it needs to destroy everything else and reign supreme over you - because Allah commands it. That's great and all - but I don't want to live under sharia. 

It is too late for Europe now. All of Europe has the disease of Islam and is like a man riddled with cancer. Australia has the opportunity to prevent this sickness from taking hold - but it must act now.


----------



## rederob (11 May 2009)

Calanen said:


> It is too late for Europe now. All of Europe has the disease of Islam and is like a man riddled with cancer. Australia has the opportunity to prevent this sickness from taking hold - but it must act now.



I underestimated you.
Which of your views is *not *the same as Hitler's?


----------



## Happy (11 May 2009)

Just yesterday I saw first half of program where 6 people (3 non-muslims and 3 muslims) took month in muslim sanctuary.

Wander if anybody saw the end part, but what struck me was statement of one of the 5 fundamental pillars of muslim faith, that *there is only one god and one religion.*
Unlike other religions that accept coexistence of all other religions and seek some dialog.

Our leaders should have a closer look at this dogma, as it sounds more like war statement, not religious principle.

And if they succeed, where does it leave the rest of Australian multicultural society?


----------



## Bobby (12 May 2009)

rederob said:


> I underestimated you.
> Which of your views is *not *the same as Hitler's?




Calanen made his views clear , you seem not capable of saying or knowing what limits to place on these boat loads of Illegal immigrants ?

Now try to answer this without getting personal if you can ?


----------



## helicart (12 May 2009)

rederob said:


> I underestimated you.
> Which of your views is *not *the same as Hitler's?




Why is the Pakistani military choosing not to vehemently defend Pakistan against the Taliban Red? 

Many say it is because they don't want to fight their Muslim brothers....no matter how extreme they are.....

And you want this for Australia????

If Australia ends up 25% devout Muslim, and the other 75% are not devout anything because they are essentially atheists full of existential angst and guilt for not being as ignorant as some Somalian hunter gatherer, then what have we got Red?

We've got 25% of the country who are clear about what they want, have a goal, and will defend it to the death. I'd put my money on them achieving their goal more than the 75% who know not what they want.


----------



## rederob (12 May 2009)

Bobby said:


> Calanen made his views clear , you seem not capable of saying or knowing what limits to place on these boat loads of Illegal immigrants ?
> 
> Now try to answer this without getting personal if you can ?



You need to read what I and several others say and try to understand the meaning of these words.
Most illegal immigrants fly into Australia.
Most illegal immigrants are quickly deported.
Legitimate asylum seekers have the protection of our laws.

Unlike you, I do not repeat lies or try to defend them.


----------



## rederob (12 May 2009)

helicart said:


> Why is the Pakistani military choosing not to vehemently defend Pakistan against the Taliban Red?
> 
> Many say it is because they don't want to fight their Muslim brothers....no matter how extreme they are.....
> 
> And you want this for Australia????



I believe we stopped killing our aborigines some time ago.

This is a thread about migrants overwhelming our borders.
You have failed to provide anything to meaningfully substantiate your case.
If you are concerned about matters tangential, open another thread.


----------



## Green08 (12 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> This thread is full of peoples ideas, limited by their ability to say what they think because of political correctness.
> 
> This is one of the wins that Keating had.
> 
> ...




GG I've been watching for a while and know that if I say it the PC mob will be all over this like a rash.

Sink the boats - I make no apologies.

With those on planes get them off and dump them in the middle of the ocean.

Our resources are so stretched I query the quality of life for my children - Not someone.

We 'draw' straws in life I was lucky It is not my responsiblity to look after others - I simply can't and keep a comfortable way of life for my family. By that I mean providing food, water, shelter, education, medical etc.  Please note comfortable in no way means luxurious - far from it.

My taxes pay for the shocking quality of infrastructure which is woefully inadequate.

I'f I had been born in a sorry situation I'd more than likely have to live it out.  Escaping and dying in the process is the luck of the draw.

People who wish to save the multitudes I hope your ready for a decline and poor state of life in Australia.


----------



## helicart (12 May 2009)

rederob said:


> I believe we stopped killing our aborigines some time ago.
> 
> This is a thread about migrants overwhelming our borders.
> You have failed to provide anything to meaningfully substantiate your case.
> If you are concerned about matters tangential, open another thread.




It is all too hard isn't it Red.

It has always been about protecting our std of living and the environment to me Red. 

But you seem to have an intellectual disability to identify what poses a threat to that.


----------



## Happy (12 May 2009)

Green08 said:


> GG I've been watching for a while and know that if I say it the PC mob will be all over this like a rash.
> 
> Sink the boats - I make no apologies.
> 
> ...





Well said!
Why those bleeding hearts don’t shuffle their own money not mine?


----------



## Calliope (12 May 2009)

Happy said:


> Well said!
> Why those bleeding hearts don’t shuffle their own money not mine?




No doubt Happy you would have been delighted to read this item in the Australian today;


> PLANS to redevelop Sydney's controversial Villawood immigration detention centre will be announced in today's federal budget, as new figures reveal the cost of processing the latest influx of boatpeople is about $38,000 an asylum seeker.



http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25465540-2702,00.html

Please note that is just *processing*


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (12 May 2009)

rederob said:


> I believe we stopped killing our aborigines some time ago.



A good article to read:


> Henry Reynolds claims in his book The Other Side of the Frontier that 10,000 Aborigines were killed in Queensland before federation. The source he provides is an article of his own called "The Unrecorded Battlefields of Queensland", which he wrote in 1978. But if you look up the article you find something very strange. It is not about Aboriginal deaths at all. *It is a tally of the number of whites killed by Aborigines*. Nowhere does it mention an Aboriginal death toll of 10,000. Reynolds gave a false citation for his evidence.




Source: http://www.kooriweb.org/foley/resources/history/winddebatehr03.html



> Aboriginal history is not anywhere near the paradigm shift stage yet. But the early signs are ominous. The anomalies are piling up. The architects of the dominant mindset have been forced to concede crucial ground. They are still clinging at all costs to the old stereotype. They have failed to defend their territory with evidence and have had to resort to personal abuse of their critics, even resorting to changing the words of their critics, just like they have changed the words of the documents on the historical record.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (12 May 2009)

Green08 said:


> GG I've been watching for a while and know that if I say it the PC mob will be all over this like a rash.
> 
> Sink the boats - I make no apologies.
> 
> ...



Green,
It is natural to want to look after your own children first. 

As I have said before it is not Australia's role to save the world. As a nation trying to maintain a first world quality of life, civilised life, it is too expensive.


----------



## Green08 (12 May 2009)

Most in the "1st" world want to be seen "doing the right thing by humanity".

The world knows many Countries and Australian are easy suckers.  Worth a go as not much is going to happen to you if you get caught - WOW they feed you, house you and give first rate medical attention. They won't do anything very nasty - just maybe send you home at their expense.

The only way to set a serious example is sink a boat and let them go down with it maybe a few times to let the message sink in. Sure it is protectionism. 

Like a parent you set the reaction by action and threatening parents have unruly offspring.

If you were trying to enter a country unannounced you would probably find that they would deal with you in a direct and unpleasant way - immediately.

Every one is so concerned with "saving face" to the point of losing liberty. 

Should be like unpaid homestay. Those that want them can put them up and pay for all their expenses out of their own money. Simple.


----------



## Julia (12 May 2009)

Green08 said:


> The only way to set a serious example is sink a boat and let them go down with it maybe a few times to let the message sink in.




I'm unhappy with allowing people into Australia who are not sympathetic to our ethos but I would never find your above suggestion acceptable, and suggest most Australians would feel similarly.



> Like a parent you set the reaction by action and threatening parents have unruly offspring.




I don't really understand what you're saying here.  Could you express it differently, perhaps?



> If you were trying to enter a country unannounced you would probably find that they would deal with you in a direct and unpleasant way - immediately.




I don't think most countries would immediately kill you.  They would probably do as Australia does and put you into a detention centre while your credentials and background were established.



> Should be like unpaid homestay. Those that want them can put them up and pay for all their expenses out of their own money. Simple.




That wouldn't counteract their lack of social assimilation which I presume is your reason for not wanting them here in the first place.
For that matter, plenty from the radical left would be only too happy to personally house and support all those they regard as refugees.  You could start with David Marr.  Since he is so ultra sympathetic, he would be an ideal candidate for your proposition.


----------



## Calliope (12 May 2009)

We should be doing everything possible to discourage immigrants who are not easily assimilated. We encouraged the immigration of cane toads and look where that got us. The toads couldn't even assimilate with the frogs . They just ate them.

A similar thing happened in NZ. They encouraged the immigration of Australian possums. God knows why, they are not too popular here. They couldn't assimilate with the fauna there. They just took over.

Both the toads and the possums are in plague proportions.

Surely there is a lesson there. I think they have learned this lesson in Europe. Too late!


----------



## doctorj (12 May 2009)

Calliope said:


> We should be doing everything possible to discourage immigrants who are not easily assimilated. We encouraged the immigration of cane toads and look where that got us. The toads couldn't even assimilate with the frogs . They just ate them.



Just to clarify - you're comparing people of a different skin colour, culture and/or religion to toads?


----------



## Green08 (13 May 2009)

Julia, yes my views are strong. 

It doesn't worry me if most don't agree with my views.  I would be surprised if they did.

As the world population increases and its associated problems the wave of migrants will increase and I think all the humanitian types will get an shock in the future.


----------



## Calliope (13 May 2009)

doctorj said:


> Just to clarify - you're comparing people of a different skin colour, culture and/or religion to toads?




Not at all. It's an analogy mate.


----------



## Happy (13 May 2009)

Green08 said:


> Most in the "1st" world want to be seen "doing the right thing by humanity".
> 
> The world knows many Countries and Australian are easy suckers.  Worth a go as not much is going to happen to you if you get caught - WOW they feed you, house you and give first rate medical attention. They won't do anything very nasty - just maybe send you home at their expense.
> 
> ...





We are simply taken for a ride and they just keep breeding like rabbits, almost feels that only for us to feel sorry and stupid circle continues.

I would happily pay for sterilisation thou.


----------



## rederob (13 May 2009)

Those posting "against" migration continue to demonstrate a vivid imagination and a penetrating ignorance of the facts, let alone a poor regard for people that might not be to their liking. 
It's amusing that if we can "prove" the benefits of migration we are labelled lefties (at best) or intellectually deficient. 

Some seem hellbent on sidetracking this thread to irrelevant themes, hoping to gain some traction for their rather interesting views.  And some traction has been gained, although how *sterilisation *is relevant is not explained.

By the way Happy (and others), Christians and Muslims worship the same god.  They just go about it differently.


----------



## helicart (13 May 2009)

rederob said:


> Some seem hellbent on sidetracking this thread to irrelevant themes,




What's irrelevant Red?


----------



## Green08 (13 May 2009)

There are many ways to repond to the thread title.

Flood of migrants overwhelm Australia's borders - My take is GG meant refugees & humanitarian migrants.  If I'm wrong GG let me know.



> The Humanitarian Program has two components:
> 
> The onshore (asylum or protection) component offers protection to people in Australia who meet the refugee definition in the United Nations Refugees Convention.
> The offshore (resettlement) component offers resettlement for people outside Australia who are in need of humanitarian assistance.



http://www.immi.gov.au/visas/humanitarian/

I don't believe in handing out Australian Citizenship willy nilly.

If the title relates to legitimate work visa applications, fine they obviously didn't arrive unannounced.  They are not the ones I'm referring to. There are some visas I don't agree with - personal reasons.

http://www.australia.gov.au/topics/immigration

Now assuming I'm referring to the 1st interpretation  of the title.

For me it is not a matter of dislike towards any nationality or country.

When will those for it (I don't like left and right as most are really in the middle and THAT is beside the point), accept the fact we Don't have and Will Never Have the support infrasturcture for a population increase of any great magnitude.

You obviously think our current standards are 1st class? I beg to differ.  Having been a 'city slicker' my whole life and now very much rural the standards are low in either across all facets.

Those that want the 'flood' please enlighten me as to how you expect to accomodate all their needs once the're here. How to deter people permanently just 'dropping in'.  How would you explain to Australians who have worked for years at Australian companies with loyalty and lost their jobs that you'd give it to some with less skill, less time paying taxes, unproven loyalty?

Should I give up my standards and those of my children for non citizens - NO

Times change and so must policy.  It appears to change rapidly with many other topics regardless of outcome.


----------



## Green08 (13 May 2009)

What is the tipping point of war invasion over acceptable invasion. 

Our 'civilized' society has made many into flourishing pansies.  You don't believe in standing and fighting for your rights? 

Protecting ownership is quite simple it used to be an instinct people knew. I suppose you wouldn't mind your car taken for a spin and trashed.

Analogy - farmers have guns  and other serious deterrants for a reason. Most city people have no idea what is out here to harm their 'potential dinner' be meat, vegetable, dairy or grain.  So we 'protect' your future meal - your health - your job - Just work down the food chain. Farmers are your first line of defense for your food - and they are very much 'with it'. And sadly very much ignored and unappreciated.

Of course that goes out the window when you buy imported product and not supporting your Australian farmers is tragic to save a buck.


----------



## rederob (13 May 2009)

Green

First, citizenship is different from "migration".  Migrants are not conferred citizenship.
Secondly, the data indicates humanitarian intakes have declined in recent years: When was the "flood"?
Thirdly, when Australia had 10 million people, did it have the infrastructure to double its population?  It's really a silly question, because we know infrastructure is built incrementally.
Fourthly, who is it that wants a "flood"?   I certainly don't.  But given there isn't any evidence to suggest a flood, it seems almost as silly a point as the preceding one.
Fifthly, which of your standards of living have declined?   Or, which ones might decline, and what reasons would give rise to the decline?  Again, all the evidence suggests migration has a net benefit to our living standards.
Finally, our migration policies are constantly changing in the light of both need and circumstance.  By and large I believe our governments in post-war years have managed to do a pretty good job.
My position is that we can afford to do a better job.


----------



## Bobby (13 May 2009)

rederob said:


> Unlike you, I do not repeat lies or try to defend them.




Repeat lies ? time to get it right mate , what I posted was a quote from the media .
You said = our infrastructure can handle more immigrants  now I'm not going to call you a liar over that insane comment so get a grip man on reality .


----------



## Bobby (13 May 2009)

helicart said:


> What's irrelevant Red?




HaHa !  you would think he could answer his own statements


----------



## Green08 (13 May 2009)

> Migrants are not conferred citizenship.



 I realize this but you would be blind to not realise that is the goal - their not going home by choice any time soon.

Flood is ambiguious so I found terminology to give us a start to the analogy:


> DEFINITION OF VARIOUS TERMS USED IN FLOOD REPORTS
> (i) *Low flood*:- Level of the river depicting predominant monsoon flow in the river
> higher than usual in other seasons of the year and has following limits,
> 
> ...




Medium flood - take measures.

I'm sure when infrastructure was new is was the latest and greatest, worked accordingly, look great, complied with then OH&S, served it's purpose.

10 million back then was sustainable with those conditions. Now we are stretched plain and simple.

Incrementally - the Pacific Highway started in 1928 and name changed 1931 it IS being build incrementally. Over budget - constant short sightedness. Desalination plant in Sydney, nice ahhh wasn't there serious concern about fresh water availability? Bit of rain and that issue got pushed back.

Dated infrastructure is declining in safety, just dangerous, expensive to maintain or too expensive to maintain or replace.

Standards of living have declined?   Are you serious???  Do you walk out your front door?




> Finally, our migration policies are constantly changing in the light of both need and circumstance.  By and large I believe our governments in post-war years have managed to do a pretty good job.
> My position is that we can afford to do a better job




Accepted your opinion you have your reasons.

Now as Mr Swan nicely pointed out last night we have a large 'hole' in the budget. Which will take some time to 'fill'.

When there is a 'hole' in my budget only things pertinent to the wellbeing of my family are dealt with and periphals discarded without fanfare.


----------



## mayk (13 May 2009)

helicart said:


> Why is the Pakistani military choosing not to vehemently defend Pakistan against the Taliban Red?
> 
> Many say it is because they don't want to fight their Muslim brothers....no matter how extreme they are.....
> 
> ...






rederob said:


> I believe we stopped killing our aborigines some time ago.
> 
> This is a thread about migrants overwhelming our borders.
> You have failed to provide anything to meaningfully substantiate your case.
> If you are concerned about matters tangential, open another thread.






helicart said:


> What's irrelevant Red?






Bobby said:


> HaHa !  you would think he could answer his own statements


----------



## rederob (13 May 2009)

Bobby said:


> HaHa !  you would think he could answer his own statements



I didn't think you wanted me to repeat your lies.  
However, if you believe you made a point that was relevant, and I have not addressed it, then I will be pleased to do so.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 May 2009)

Green08 said:


> There are many ways to repond to the thread title.
> 
> Flood of migrants overwhelm Australia's borders - My take is GG meant refugees & humanitarian migrants.  If I'm wrong GG let me know.
> 
> ...




I would agree totally wih your take on migration to Australia Green08.

It needs to be measured, and quantified and the views of Australians needs to be taken into account.

For what its worth I have found amongst my circle that the best migrants, not necessarily in any order are Tanzanians and some other Africans,  White Zimbabweans and South Africans and Irish.

They seem to adjust better, whinge little, don't threaten their fellow Australians and just get on with their lives.

Keating and co tried to impose a bottom down approach to Australian society and the Ruddmeister seems to be going down the same track.

He may end up a feather duster.

Australians are the arbiters of who migrates here not some basket weaving Labor appartchik awaiting preselection.

gg


----------



## Bobby (13 May 2009)

rederob said:


> I didn't think you wanted me to repeat your lies.
> However, if you believe you made a point that was relevant, and I have not addressed it, then I will be pleased to do so.




Can't stop the BS  hey  .
:nono: 
Open your own Pandora's box then .

A question for all, public servants & those employed in the private sector who use their paid for working hours for personal use are doing what ?


----------



## rederob (13 May 2009)

Bobby said:


> Can't stop the BS  hey  .
> :nono:
> Open your own Pandora's box then .
> 
> A question for all, public servants & those employed in the private sector who use their paid for working hours for personal use are doing what ?



Again off topic Bobby!
As you appear to have made no points of relevance, and mostly repeated lies in this thread, I will treat you with the respect you deserve.


----------



## Bobby (13 May 2009)

rederob said:


> Again off topic Bobby!
> As you appear to have made no points of relevance, and mostly repeated lies in this thread, I will treat you with the respect you deserve.




See your getting nervous boy , off topic hey ! now its *Mostly*  repeated lies ?  

For those just tuning in go back and have a look at when it all started last month , quite entertaining ..


----------



## helicart (13 May 2009)

mayk said:


>




May, what on earth motivated you to quote Red talking about Aboriginals.....which incidentally, do gooder lefties are killing even more efficiently now than ever before......yup give someone money for nothing, and let their cultural values and self discipline save or destroy their souls......and Mal Brough exposed which way that was going. 

Gee, even Motorway and other Paleo diet advocates reckon Aboriginals would be a lot healthier eating their traditional hunter gatherer diet. But you guys want to take even more of their hunting ground away and house foreigners who don't know when to stop breeding...

Feel free to keep ignoring my oft repeated questions about Australia's carrying capacity and ignore providing examples of successful multiculti nations.....and don't bother answeing the big question of why you want to spend millions on a few thousand humanitarian refos settling here, when the same money would support 10-20 times that many when spent as aid in their own countries. 

God even Chairman Rudd realizes other people's money runs out long before you  get all your  inequalities redressed........why can't you guys?

Just goes to show how bleeding hearts make decisions not primarily to provide the greatest good for the greatest number, but to provide themselves with a sense of smug moral superiority and easing of conscience disturbed by general life apathy....


----------



## Bobby (14 May 2009)

helicart said:


> Just goes to show how bleeding hearts make decisions not primarily to provide the greatest good for the greatest number, but to provide themselves with a sense of smug moral superiority and easing of conscience disturbed by general life apathy....




Yep most of these brain dead goobs are public servants on the gravy train , they have never know what its like to run a business & employ staff in the real world .
These idiots can't seem to grasp that the money they survive on comes from private enterprise .
And getting back on thread they want to let in more gate crashers .
Who is going to pay for these ?  YOU are , each & every tax payer !


----------



## Happy (14 May 2009)

Bobby said:


> Yep most of these brain dead goobs are public servants on the gravy train , they have never know what its like to run a business & employ staff in the real world .
> These idiots can't seem to grasp that the money they survive on comes from private enterprise .
> And getting back on thread they want to let in more gate crashers .
> Who is going to pay for these ?  YOU are , each & every tax payer !





Yes, Government position hardly ever has to be justified, most of the time it is like God given right.

Shouldn’t we make politician’s unemployment tied to general population unemployment?

Shouldn’t we make immigration tied to general budget and send some back when in deficit?

We have problems with water, roads, rail, schools, hospitals, criminals, yet we religiously take well over 100,000 new migrants every year, plus whoever manages to jump the queue.


----------



## Calliope (14 May 2009)

helicart said:


> ...smug moral superiority...




Your critics have this in spades. They don't have much else.


----------



## rederob (14 May 2009)

helicart has not been able to prove his case, so he keeps trotting out new themes, hoping for a win.
He wants to know my thoughts on "carrying capacity".
What an utter furphy in this thread. 
Why?
Household water consumption is 10% of present storage.  We could build more dams and increase capacity, if needed.  But in simple terms we could provide water for 200million people.
Could we feed 200 million people?
We consume less than half our locally produced grain stocks, beef, and mutton.  In most other food categories we more than meed local demand and could produce more if we could sustain exports (our high dollar is an impediment).  In simple terms we have *present *capacity to feed at least a population of double our present number.
Thus, carrying capacity is quite irrelevant in the context of annual population increases of around 300k.  By the way, ABS projections have our population increasing by at least 10 million (with a higher estimate showing a doubling) in the next 50 years.

Although I could respond to some of helicart's other issues, apart from them being off topic, they also demonstrate a basic lack of understanding of national and international obligations.

Or, they have answers that are fraught with definitional and conceptional ambiguities.  For example, how do we define "multicultural"?  Which nations are not "multicultural"?  For those that are, what measure of "success" do we employ?


----------



## helicart (14 May 2009)

rederob said:


> helicart has not been able to prove his case, so he keeps trotting out new themes, hoping for a win.
> 
> new themes only to a mind that can't see the forest for the trees Red.....
> 
> ...




So at what rate should we take in humanitarian and skilled migrants Red?
Click on the population clock below for an update of the world's population to help keep you updated on the rate our 'obligation' grows....

And if international humanitarian refugee numbers rise 1000% (say due to extremist Muslims running amok in Afghanistan and Pakistan), are we obligated to increase our intake by 1000%?

if not, then your idea of our 'obligations' has just been shown up for the self serving Pollyanna poppycock it is.


----------



## rederob (14 May 2009)

helicart

A good student asks clever questions.
Yours are very average.

A good student counters points with more telling points.  I might have to ask Greens find you some dictionary definitions of "relevant" so you can stay in the game.

When you have done some homework and are able to present a cogent case in support of the views you hold - relevant to the topic - you might learn some more.

In that regard your reply to my previous post was a typical example of your incapacity to indulge in a debate on merit.


----------



## helicart (15 May 2009)

rederob said:


> helicart
> 
> A good student asks clever questions.
> Yours are very average.
> ...




I hear your wheels spinning Red, but there's no traction..........Just like Rudd's budget upheld, there's never enough revenues for leftie idealists to usurp and redistribute. When the private sector suffers, all Big Brother can do is borrow from future productivity......hock itself to eternity you say...

I see you still haven't studied the role of capital in sustaining GDP per capita no matter how many skilled migrants enter the country, just as you have not applied yourself to understanding why Australia's net foreign liabilities continue to climb in the face of all the wealth created by migrants. Come on Red, be a good student and hop back on google for another 2 weeks.


----------



## disarray (15 May 2009)

rederob said:


> He wants to know my thoughts on "carrying capacity". What an utter furphy in this thread. Why?




good question. why is discussion on desired population level for australia a furphy? do you have a figure in mind? what would be required for this figure to be obtainable (without the rest of us sacrificing quality of life / security etc.?)



> Household water consumption is 10% of present storage.  We could build more dams and increase capacity, if needed.  But in simple terms we could provide water for 200million people.




at what cost? how many dams? flood all the rivers? how many desal plants? how will we pay for them? does that mean the water restrictions imposed on the capital cities aren't really required? so the last few years of drought have been imaginary? can we move out of the realm of fantasy and focus on what is realistic?



> Could we feed 200 million people?




depends on what we feed them. you happy to rape the oceans (more)? subsist on vegetables? pay more for steak than oil? ruin one of the only things our backwards third rate short sighted pathetic economy actually produces? where will the 180 other million people come from? we want to breed them locally (in which case get busy people) or just grab a random sample of third world and settle them .... where? are we even looking at the state of the world 50 years down the track politically, economically, socially, technologically, environmentally? 

no i didn't think so.



> Although I could respond to some of helicart's other issues, apart from them being off topic, they also demonstrate a basic lack of understanding of national and international obligations.




whose obligations? we must do .... what? says who? here's a novel concept for a sovereign nation - WE decide what WE must do. WE are obligated to look after us and ours. feed our hungry, house our homeless, provide for our elderly, educate our children with a top notch education. how's that for obligation? when we meet those criteria then we can start looking further afield. maybe. if its what WE want.



> Or, they have answers that are fraught with definitional and conceptional ambiguities.  For example, how do we define "multicultural"?  Which nations are not "multicultural"?  For those that are, what measure of "success" do we employ?




now we're getting somewhere. let's nail some ambiguities down shall we?

should we be multicultural? or should we all be australian? what is australian? if we are multicultural then does that mean we accept cultural quirks like ... oh i don't know ... honour killings? arranged marriages? child brides? female genital mutilation? selling children for debts? hey how about slavery? africans and arabs are still into slavery, thats cultural right? polygamy? here's an idea, when a woman is pack raped, we'll make it so she needs 4 witnesses to testify to the fact and we'll sentence her to 50 lashes anyway because she had the gall to leave her home and not be in the presence of  male relative! yeah culture is good, lets multi culture it!

which nations are not multicultural? good question, lets have a look.

we'll start with china. want to express tibetan cultural identity? bzzt wrong answer. have a ruthless and bloody suppression instead. maybe malaysia? ethnically chinese or indian? well article 153 in the CONSITITUTION states that only ethic malays are the master of the country. yay multicultural! oh wait .... how about jews in iran? want to send money to israel? go on a family holiday? rise to the dizzying heights of civil service supremacy? bzzt denied. multicultural!! oh wait .... lets be christian in saudi arabia! white in zimbabwe! hutu in rwanda! kurdish or armenian in turkey!  

some countries can't even be monocultural, see lower caste discrimintation in india (where you can rape and murder lower class dirtbags without punishment!) or even japan of all places.

seriously i really have to lay it out to rob and the rest of you deluded rainbow hippies - the world is not a nice place. humans are not a nice species. do you even travel? (properly, not like contiki). here in the west we are the HISTORICAL PINNACLE of humanity to our fellow man. we are the only society to outlaw slavery EVER IN HISTORY, we legislate against all forms of religious, gender and racial discrimination, we provide top quality medical and social welfare to EVERYONE who needs it (even the scumbags who don't deserve it).

we have this because our society evolved towards it. we had to have world wars that bled generations of men and required women to work which gave them the opportunity for emancipation. our society cost blood. a lot of blood. the blood of people who had a sense of identity and were prepared to die for that identity.

we are under no obligation now, or ever, to subvert our identity, bend our ideals, compromise our principles or in any way, shape or form go against our best interests for any other nation, race, religion or ideal in the world. not now, not ever. EVER.

if you are so filled with cultural guilt, self-loathing or lack pride in your nation, race or ideology then by all means buy a plane ticket and go wherever you feel you belong. your education, skin colour and upbringing should give you a head start over 75% of the rest of the world from the moment you land. if you can't realise this, and are too hateful to want to protect it, then i pity you.


----------



## rederob (15 May 2009)

helicart
disarray examined the few points I raised in response to your goading on "carrying capacity".  Your responses have ignored the matter.

If you have something of relevance to add to this thread, it would be good to see it some time this year.  In the meantime I am going to recommence my analysis of commodity markets as when this lull is over there will be strong gains to made with minimal short run risk.


----------



## helicart (15 May 2009)

Dis, that was brilliantly said. 

At the core of this guilt driven international obligation and multiculti thang, is a lack of respect for our heritage and associated values. 

I have many respected first gen Asian migrant friends who hold closer to the traditional values of our heritage than many anglo caucasians I know........and in alignment with our traditional values, they aren't happy about all the drivelling guilt driven govt concessions and handouts being thrown at Islamic communities and culture......nor are they supporters of welfare mentality.  





rederob said:


> helicart
> disarray examined the few points I raised in response to your goading on "carrying capacity".  Your responses have ignored the matter.
> 
> Maybe so....but then I was responding to the logic you chose to support your counterargument.
> ...





Further, any Qld State govt that tries to go ahead with the seriously compromised alternative and highly unpopular Traveston Dam will be voted out before it can be started. The number of well watered food producing hectares that this dam would consume is worth pondering in your carrying capacity calcs Red. 

So, like wow, who would have thought environmentalism would ever conflict with our ability to honour our written in stone 'obligation' to international law to obligingly accept 3%,5%,10%, what%, of uneducated Islamists who can't organize themselves to defend their homeland and values....

Obviously not dill leftie ideologues without foresight or feet firmly on the ground, who agreed we should hold to those laws come rain or shine or 10,000, 100,000, 1,000,000 asylum seekers on leaky boats......


----------



## Green08 (15 May 2009)

> My position is that we can afford to do a better job




Red - could you explain in detail to me how we can do a better job without losing the limited infrastructure, quality of our lives or costing money?

If the Pansy Government can't look after us - Aussies - first why the hell should I look after anyone else.

I'm a full blooded Atheist. 

I'm so over the religious issues.  They come here and continue fighting - go back to where you came from if you want a new land to carry on trivial hatred. 

We have major issues that MUST be addressed in Australia.

You say to much food.  Really? Aussie Food?   I see a very different side living in the country. Most farmers struggle to makes ends meet. There is increasing numbers of farmers committing suicide from the grief of lost sales to imports, battling dramatic weather, inadequate water supplies.  I won't even consider what you have to say unless you have lived here and seen it.  The government abuse Primary Producers with stupid taxes to give to people landing here - Get Real.

It is a very sorry state to not protect our own people first. Most agricultural research has stopped due to "lack of funding".  Bullsht - Reduction in R & D for agriculture is a death sentence for everyone here.


----------



## rederob (15 May 2009)

helicart
You keep shifting the goalposts.
Is it environment, economy, or something else?
Yet to see you put anything decent together, so I won't be replying to you until you have a cogent case to present - which has been lacking from the outset.

Green
Migration is a net financial positive from year one, increasing as the cohort stays longer in our nation.  In that context migrants contribute a greater share to Australia's infrastructure than local born.  The detailed answer you need is one which addresses the skill base of local born and their propensity to work hard.

disarray
First, carrying capacity is the *maximum *number of living things that can be supported in a specific habitat.  We already produce enough food to support double our population, and have enough water in storage for a population of 200million without the need to build another dam.  Adding another 10 million migrants in the next 50 years will be a doddle.
Secondly, you failed to "define" multiculturalism.  However, you adequately showed that nations have issues irrespective of their "cultural mix".  In that context it is a sideshow to suggest migrants cause insurmountable social problems.  
If you can get your act together there might be something else worth discussing from your remaining ramblings.


----------



## helicart (15 May 2009)

rederob said:


> helicart
> You keep shifting the goalposts.
> Is it environment, economy, or something else?
> Yet to see you put anything decent together, so I won't be replying to you until you have a cogent case to present - which has been lacking from the outset.
> ...




you are getting mind numbingly repetitive and uninpiring Red.


----------



## GumbyLearner (15 May 2009)

FWIW
I remember as a kid being overwhelmed by the first job offer I ever received. Actually, he was a great boss and also a migrant.


----------



## helicart (15 May 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> FWIW
> I remember as a kid being overwhelmed by the first job offer I ever received. Actually, he was a great boss and also a migrant.




I'd say 70% of my best friends are 1st, 2nd, or 3rd gen migrants GG...

But they all take issue with bending over to accommodate Islam, and they hate socialism and a welfare state with a vengeance.....and they will protect their std of living more intensely than many of the lost souls that feel bad about those of us who work hard and are financially rewarded for doing so.


----------



## GumbyLearner (15 May 2009)

helicart said:


> I'd say 70% of my best friends are 1st, 2nd, or 3rd gen migrants GG...
> 
> But they all take issue with bending over to accommodate Islam, and they hate socialism and a welfare state with a vengeance.....and they will protect their std of living more intensely than many of the lost souls that feel bad about those of us who work hard and are financially rewarded for doing so.




I'm glad Australia accommodated this two fine young men.
Growing up in Thommo and hitting the books.
Well done young lads. 

http://www.theage.com.au/national/f...astown-and-near-perfection-20081215-6z1t.html

WHEN Shaheen Hasmat and his family arrived in Australia from Afghanistan as refugees five years ago, the year 8 student knew only a few words in English, like yes and no.

Despite his love of numbers ”” he admits to reading physics websites in his spare time ”” his schooling in the war-torn capital, Kabul, had been sporadic at best.

On Monday night, just hours before the VCE results were released, the 17-year-old paced his family's Thomastown home while his mother and five siblings slept, feeling the weight of the world on his shoulders and unable to sleep.

But yesterday, Shaheen was the dux of Reservoir District Secondary College, with a near-perfect tertiary score, or ENTER, of 99.8 and the promise of a scholarship to study medicine at Monash University.

He achieved a perfect score of 50 in specialist maths, scores above 45 for English, physics, chemistry and maths methods, and first class honours for university physics.

"When I found out I lay on the floor and prayed, thanking God," he said. "Knowledge has always been valued in my family and I just felt so grateful to be able to do this."

His delight was shared by his older brother, Poya, 18, who was the dux of their school last year, with an ENTER of 97.95.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> I'm glad Australia accommodated this two fine young men.
> Growing up in Thommo and hitting the books.
> Well done young lads.
> 
> ...




agree totally .

Afghans have good genes.

Their beliefs are a bit sus, but the ones I know have abandoned their religion quite quickly, after a few years in the freedom of Australia.

Racism should be banned from this forum, full stop.

Afghans are also bloody good soccer players.

gg


----------



## disarray (15 May 2009)

rederob said:


> First, carrying capacity is the *maximum *number of living things that can be supported in a specific habitat.  We already produce enough food to support double our population, and have enough water in storage for a population of 200million without the need to build another dam.  Adding another 10 million migrants in the next 50 years will be a doddle.




why do we need to add another 10 million immigrants? you are obsessed with growth. what's wrong with sustainability? 

also you say we have storage for 200 million people, where is your source for this claim? what level of water restrictions are required for this? how long will these supplies last with 200 million people utilising them? does it require us to drain the aquefiers? build new pipelines? pray for more rain? does this magic number take into account environmental cycles like drought, el nino events and so on? is this just for domestic consumption or is industry included? does it take into account the growth of industry if we jam another 10 million people into our capital cities (which is where they will undoubtedly settle)? what environmental impacts would occur with the additional strain on water supplies?

you keep coming up with all these broad generalisations with absolutely no facts and i don't see any evidence of you putting any consideration whatsoever into your ill conceived and fanciful ideas.



> Secondly, you failed to "define" multiculturalism.




you define it. you are an extremely lazy poster and debater.



> However, you adequately showed that nations have issues irrespective of their "cultural mix".  In that context it is a sideshow to suggest migrants cause insurmountable social problems.




how is it a sideshow? if i just proved that racial mixes create social problems,  then potential social problems are an important aspect of immigration policy and must be addressed. and i'm glad you think i "adequately showed" it. you really are a elitist intellectual prig aren't you?



> If you can get your act together there might be something else worth discussing from your remaining ramblings.




see my last sentence of the previous point. you are a one eyed, closed minded, hypocritical bigot who headbutts his way through threads with nothing more than ill conceived opinions, tenuous facts and a massive ego.

yes mr. rob, you are a textbook bigot.



			
				GG said:
			
		

> Racism should be banned from this forum




so whose definition of racism? is pointing out factual and provable difference between races and cultures racism? and while we're at it lets ban sexism. and criticism of religion. how about we just come up with a set opinion everyone should follow and we'll ban anyone who deviates from that? unleash the banhammer!



			
				GG said:
			
		

> Afghans have good genes...Afghans are also bloody good soccer players




racist


----------



## helicart (15 May 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> I'm glad Australia accommodated this two fine young men.







Garpal Gumnut said:


> agree totally .
> 
> Afghans have good genes.





Really???  Well I am disappointed for the Islamic Afghan people for having just lost  more of their potential intellectual capital.....but I suppose Australians who feel intellectually challenged and incapable of meeting the opportunities of the future, due to the disadvantage and sense of inferiority their personal values have brought upon their heads, don't see it that way....and rejoice that they can rest back on the haunches sucking down another coldie, putting another high fat sausage on the barbie while watching the footy on the outdoor plasma, and let the little battler migrants do all the hard yards


----------



## rederob (15 May 2009)

Let me take your points in turn so that you understand what debating can be:







disarray said:


> why do we need to add another 10 million immigrants?



Carefully read what I said; that we can accommodate another 10 million migrants over the next 50 years.  It was said in the context of carrying capacity, and is consistent with ABS population estimates.  We may not "need" that many migrants.  On the other hand there is every chance that our inadequate skills base in a growing global setting will demand we source labour from overseas.  This has been a repeating theme in Australia and is likely to continue.




> you are obsessed with growth.



This statement is not true.  Growth is a natural phenomenon and I won't stand in its way.  I am concerned that we properly manage growth and see it as important to our  progress.




> what's wrong with sustainability?



I am a staunch supporter of sustainability.  As a nation I believe our greatest failing is a lack of planning for sustainability.




> also you say we have storage for 200 million people, where is your source for this claim? what level of water restrictions are required for this? how long will these supplies last with 200 million people utilising them? does it require us to drain the aquefiers? build new pipelines? pray for more rain? does this magic number take into account environmental cycles like drought, el nino events and so on? is this just for domestic consumption or is industry included? does it take into account the growth of industry if we jam another 10 million people into our capital cities (which is where they will undoubtedly settle)? what environmental impacts would occur with the additional strain on water supplies?



My numbers were based solely on the notion of "carrying capacity".  In relation to water you can search for yourself if you don't believe me.  Then you might have some basis for refuting my claims.




> you keep coming up with all these broad generalisations with absolutely no facts and i don't see any evidence of you putting any consideration whatsoever into your ill conceived and fanciful ideas.



I can present all the facts necessary to substantiate my claims.  Despite calls in this thread that I have erred somewhere, none have been shown to have any foundation.  I repeat: My challenge to your ilk is to prove I am wrong.  




> you define it.



You took on the challenge.  Now it's too hard for you?  I made it clear that "multiculturalism" was prone to certain ambiguities.




> you are an extremely lazy poster and debater.



I prefer to respond to points raised in relation to the topic at hand.  I believe I have made this clear in this thread.




> how is it a sideshow? if i just proved that racial mixes create social problems,  then potential social problems are an important aspect of immigration policy and must be addressed. and i'm glad you think i "adequately showed" it.



You adequately showed that nations exhibiting minimal "multicultural" aspect, such as China, have social issues to contend with.  In words of your own choosing "the world is not a nice place. humans are not a nice species".  So immigration is not of itself the cause of social dislocations.  Rightly, you recognise there might be cultural baggage that some immigrants bring that are anathema - both to our society, and within their own.  




> you really are a elitist intellectual prig aren't you?



I will take that as a compliment and thank you for making your views so clear.




> see my last sentence of the previous point. you are a one eyed, closed minded, hypocritical bigot who headbutts his way through threads with nothing more than ill conceived opinions, tenuous facts and a massive ego.



See my last sentence of the previous post.




> yes mr. rob, you are a textbook bigot.



That would be illogical in the context of my stance in this thread.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (15 May 2009)

disarray said:


> why do we need to add another 10 million immigrants? you are obsessed with growth. what's wrong with sustainability?
> 
> also you say we have storage for 200 million people, where is your source for this claim? what level of water restrictions are required for this? how long will these supplies last with 200 million people utilising them? does it require us to drain the aquefiers? build new pipelines? pray for more rain? does this magic number take into account environmental cycles like drought, el nino events and so on? is this just for domestic consumption or is industry included? does it take into account the growth of industry if we jam another 10 million people into our capital cities (which is where they will undoubtedly settle)? what environmental impacts would occur with the additional strain on water supplies?
> 
> ...




Thanks dis, its a good post and contributes to debate.

I've done some research on my roots ( not those other some many thousand or so roots I remember each and every one with pleasure) 

I am a mixture mainly of Celt and Viking.

So I have unpredictable warlike genes.

I accept this , it is not racist.

I find Afghans and Sri Lankans of both sides very engaging people.

I find Egyptians difficult to digest.

That is not racist.

Perhaps if I spent time in Egypt it would be different.

The Dutch I like, also Afrikanners.

Ah, I can see you now classifyying me as racist.

Of all the races I would want my childrens' genes mixed with I would propose, Irish, Indian, Dutch, Chinese or Spanish. 

Not in any particular order.

But they will make their own minds up.

Racism is a very easy term to bandy about, but be careful , lest you do it to a person with Celtic or Viking blood in his veins, lest you end up in the deepest difficult argument you can ever imagine.

Sir , you are a a disgrace.

gg.


----------



## disarray (15 May 2009)

rederob said:


> Carefully read what I said; that we can accommodate another 10 million migrants over the next 50 years.  It was said in the context of carrying capacity, and is consistent with ABS population estimates.




and in the context of your other posts in this thread, such as -



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> We can afford to be more generous ... *I believe our refugee intake needs to be steadily ratcheted upwards* ... I repeat what I have said about refugee intakes in that we can afford to take more: That we have a capacity to ratchet the numbers higher over time ...




but wait ...



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> At no point in this thread have I said "bring more immigrants"... I don't recall saying we should increase migration




so which one is it? we need to ratchet up the refugee intake or not? or is this different to "bringing more immigrants"? or perhaps refugees aren't migrants by your definition? or more likely is you didn't mean to make an actual point by using the word "needs" when you really should have just kept dodging and not making any point of your own. not making points of your own isn't debating by the way.

so red, should we bring more migrants (including refugees) into australia or not? if yes, how many did you have in mind? where do you think we should source them?



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> This statement is not true.  Growth is a natural phenomenon and I won't stand in its way.  I am concerned that we properly manage growth and see it as important to our  progress.




ok so tell us how we would manage your target of 200 million people living in australia? economically, socially, environmentally, infrastructure development and so on. or wait, maybe you didn't actually say we should have 200 million people. oh you meant carrying capacity, ok then red, lets nail it down shall we - how many people do YOU think we should have in australia given the current state of the nation? what should our growth rate be?



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> I am a staunch supporter of sustainability.




ok then, what is a sustainable population level for australia? what requirements need to be met for this level?



> As a nation I believe our greatest failing is a lack of planning for sustainability.




i agree



> My numbers were based solely on the notion of "carrying capacity".  In relation to water you can search for yourself if you don't believe me.  Then you might have some basis for refuting my claims.




heh you're a slippery one, i'll give you that. its cool, lets just get some concrete numbers out of you for a change instead of the amorphous word play you love so well.



> I can present all the facts necessary to substantiate my claims




ok present the water carrying capacity *fact*. present the *fact* that "by redirecting monies from border defence to humanitarian resettlement programs we would benifit both socially and financially in the longer term". what *facts* back up your assertion that "Australia has more than adequate infrastructure to accommodate a significantly larger population than it has"?

notice how facts is in bold? that means "not opinions". your opinions have been repeatedly refuted but you really don't seem to pay attention to anyone other than yourself.



> Despite calls in this thread that I have erred somewhere, none have been shown to have any foundation.  I repeat: My challenge to your ilk is to prove I am wrong.




wrong about what? carrying capacity? you haven't provided any *facts*. that australia can support 200 million people? you haven't provided any *facts*.



> You took on the challenge.  Now it's too hard for you?  I made it clear that "multiculturalism" was prone to certain ambiguities.




here we go again with reds challenges. lets have a look at his other challenges this thread and his response when he is challenged -



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> Your challenge is to falsify my claims ...You need to show the material impact of migration on company takeovers, etc.... *I don't need to disprove anything* ... I don't have to prove anything because my stance in this thread is about Australia (as a wealthy nation) accepting an increased share of refugees ... I put a challenge to you that remains unmet






> I prefer to respond to points raised in relation to the topic at hand.  I believe I have made this clear in this thread.




except when it suits you not to. lazy.



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> That would be illogical in the context of my stance in this thread.




_A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset._



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> the political backlash from xenophobes ... The ignorance displayed by some here about the plight and motives of refugees is symptomatic of xenophobic attitudes, and gains traction with those will never seek to look over the horizon ... You need to make fewer assumptions than you do, and you might become more credible ...




there's more of that where that came from. your similar efforts in the arab/israeli thread were stellar! how about -

_Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable._



			
				rederob said:
			
		

> *i don't have to disprove anything*






			
				GG said:
			
		

> Racism is a very easy term to bandy about, but be careful , lest you do it to a person with Celtic or Viking blood in his veins, lest you end up in the deepest difficult argument you can ever imagine.
> 
> Sir , you are a a disgrace.




what the hell are you blathering on about?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 May 2009)

dis,



You sound as if you are either an academic or someone with a wheelbarrow to push.

The allegation of racism has lost all of its Keating era power, due to manipulation by politicians.

We are all racist , in one way or another. 

It is normal.

What democracy and the rule of law ensures is that peple will not be adversely affected by racism.

By stating my genetic ancestry I am saying to you that I do not suffer fools gladly.

OK.

I don't suffer fools.

Do I need to make it any more cogent?


gg


----------



## disarray (16 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> We are all racist , in one way or another.
> 
> It is normal.




yeah i know. i'm talking about you saying "ban racism" then make "racist" comments about afghans. i'm asking where do you draw the line if you want to start wielding the banhammer over it?



> By stating my genetic ancestry I am saying to you that I do not suffer fools gladly.




i don't care about your genetic ancestry there tiger. i've got the same as you.


----------



## GumbyLearner (16 May 2009)

disarray said:


> yeah i know. i'm talking about you saying "ban racism" then make "racist" comments about afghans. i'm asking where do you draw the line if you want to start wielding the banhammer over it?
> 
> 
> 
> i don't care about your genetic ancestry there tiger. i've got the same as you.




I probably have the same as both of you.

But you know what deep down ****s me about this thread, ..is the concept of a fair-go! We are all Aussie! It has never been mentioned once, not *ONCE*!


----------



## GumbyLearner (16 May 2009)

Honestly

Who cares?

If you want to make a go of it, why not our wonderful country?


----------



## rederob (16 May 2009)

disarray
Is there a reason that neither you nor you cohort cannot come up with figures to back up your points?
Parsing our respective posts does not add to this thread.
I've put out some numbers.
You want sources/references?
How about you come back with your own ideas and support them.

In the meantime I am willing to bet anyone that our population will continue to increase year on year for the foreseeable future, with migration continuing to make a significant contribution.  I also expect our society to advance considerably over coming decades, with attendant increases in living standards.  There is nothing to suggest the proven net benefits of migration to our economy will be detrimentally impacted, even if our refugee shares were to double.


----------



## Bobby (16 May 2009)

rederob said:


> disarray
> Parsing our respective posts does not add to this thread.
> I've put out some numbers.
> .




Oh ?   yours got torn apart ,  yes you sure have put out some numbers ,  :screwy:
What a pathetic response to Disarrays destruction of your logic .

Lets see what attack you come back with this time ?  will it be I tell mostly lies or some other demented rubbish ?   can't wait for the next laugh  :fu:


----------



## helicart (17 May 2009)

rederob said:


> In the meantime I am willing to bet anyone that our population will continue to increase year on year for the foreseeable future, with migration continuing to make a significant contribution.
> 
> It will increase based on the beliefs and sentiment, no matter how misinformed, of the electorate.....which means squat re the wisest way forwards.
> 
> I also expect our society to advance considerably over coming decades, with attendant increases in living standards.  There is nothing to suggest the proven net benefits of migration to our economy will be detrimentally impacted, even if our refugee shares were to double.




1.
So according to Red, we have a higher std of living when the median house price moves from 4x median wage to 8x....

National Median House Price = 470,000   Source:APM
National Full Time Ordinary Hour Median Income = 60,000 Source:ABS 

And let's remember, a very high % of people don't have permanent f/t jobs nowadays...

The net effect of this is of course, to force households to rely on dual incomes, which puts downwards pressure on the fertility rate......of course, a lower fertility rate fits Red's strategy to rely even moreso on migration. 

And, as usual, Red just insouciantly skims over the reasons for higher property prices with not a care in the world....according to Red, higher property prices have absolutely nothing to do with migration. 


2.
And Red, let's have a look below at some of the figures you provided to validate your POV. 

Can you explain how Australia benefits from migrants from family, humanitarian, and refugee categories. And what did you want to increase these categories by....

Considering by this 'model', each humanitarian or refugee migrant costs Australia 20k in year 1, and another 20k over the next 19 years, just what did you want to expand the category to? 

And while you are at it, I've had a look at these numbers for a while and cannot work out how the bottom line was derived. Maybe you can.


----------



## rederob (17 May 2009)

You didn't get it before:







> > Originally Posted by rederob
> > By the way, when you rethink post 245 you might realise the massive miscalculation you made (post 250) - quite unforgivable actually, although I will concede to you some humanity.
> 
> 
> ...




And you still don't get it:







> And while you are at it, I've had a look at these numbers for a while and cannot work out how the bottom line was derived. Maybe you can.




Not being able to work the maths on migration you now move this discussion to median house prices.  What's next?


----------



## helicart (17 May 2009)

rederob said:


> You didn't get it before:
> 
> And you still don't get it:
> 
> Not being able to work the maths on migration you now move this discussion to median house prices.  What's next?





Hey, I'm not on the team fudging the migration stats to confuse poor Joe Public .... come on Red, explain how the bottom line is derived. 

And I see you are back to your usual trick of ignoring the too hard questions Red......so I'll repeat the question: 

how many 40k+ net deficit refugees can we absorb?

I'll take a guess and presume your answer is- by increasing our intake of skilled migrants..........

Really Red? then explain who employs these extra skilled workers.
Presumably, those companies will need to borrow capital to finance their operations. And where are they going to get that capital from Red? 

As for median house prices, oh yes, I forgot....in your humble opinion, migration has no bearing on housing supply and demand.....


----------



## rederob (17 May 2009)

helicart said:


> Hey, I'm not on the team fudging the migration stats to confuse poor Joe Public .... come on Red, explain how the bottom line is derived.
> 
> And I see you are back to your usual trick of ignoring the too hard questions Red......so I'll repeat the question:
> 
> ...



You really don't get it, do you.
All your carrying on and you can't work out the maths, nor understand the generally neglected key benefit of refugee intakes.
Australia's aging population requires an influx of young blood to rebalance itself.  It's a reason the baby bonus was implemented, and is also an important reason behind paid maternity leave.
Refugees are definitely expensive in their early years.  However, their age profile gives them the best number of "working years" out of all the migration categories.
When you can get your mind on the bigger picture you might then want to rework the numbers for yourself.

By the way, weren't you told about the quality of your questions?  Frankly, most don't warrant an answer.  I could tell you why, but you might still want to argue the toss on that.


----------



## helicart (17 May 2009)

rederob said:


> Australia's aging population requires an influx of young blood to rebalance itself.  It's a reason the baby bonus was implemented, and is also an important reason behind paid maternity leave.




Hey Red, that's the spirit....stay on task here now Red.....so if your major premise is we need migration because we have an aging population, then you must have put a lot of thought into why the population is aging..... 

So if our std of living is as good as you say, and it is bound to improve even more, then come on Red.....explain why we have an aging population.

Then explain why your team prefer to deplete other nations of their  intellectual capital to compensate the cause our aging population.


----------



## helicart (18 May 2009)

Here Red, chew on these outcomes of the Access Model. 

The figures below are the cost per migrant category (allows for the number of migrants in each category). 

Have a look at 'humanitarian or refugee' in particular Red. Those 11,186 we took last financial year are going to cost the country $332,000,000 over 20 years, in real $, not nominal. Hey, and that's only for their first 20 years. After that, they start hitting the pension, and that 332M will sky rocket. 

Then, gee it looks like the 'parents-contributory' group aren't making a big enough up front visa payment to cover their drain on welfare. See how the nanny state complicates migration calculus Red? 

So what was our legal obligation again Red? Oh yes...to bring in our fair share of anyone with a worse std of living than Australia's bleeding hearts....

No wonder the govt and liberal progressive media want to shut down the debate by calling anyone who questions this stuff a racist.....Joe Average would have a heart attack if he knew his kids would still be paying for the privilege of hosting refugees brought in under our watch.


----------



## rederob (18 May 2009)

helicart said:


> Here Red, chew on these outcomes of the Access Model.
> 
> The figures below are the cost per migrant category (allows for the number of migrants in each category).
> 
> ...



Your maths is quite abysmal.  If there were 20 columns of data the tabled totals would be more accurate.  However, the totals are just "representative" of the 8 years' data.

The refugee category turns positive after 12 years (not shown in the table).  And the average working life of this category on entering Australia is considerably more than 20 years.  The table also does not show the significant uptick in surplus for this cohort after 20 years, when the children of this group begin to make a contribution to our economy similar to Australian born.  This cohort has, on average, more children than Australian born, meaning the average migrant family will ultimately deliver a better return.


----------



## helicart (18 May 2009)

rederob said:


> Your maths is quite abysmal.  If there were 20 columns of data the tabled totals would be more accurate.  However, the totals are just "representative" of the 8 years' data.
> 
> Doh!!! walked right into that one Red.....but au contraire, it is your math and impetuousness that is on full show.
> 
> ...




Yes, some refugees might have more children, some not. But their childrens' contribution will be paying off their parents deficit for years to come, a burden skippys don't have.......which highlights why Australia should be prioritizing self sufficiency in population and economic sustainability, rather than depriving other countries of their intellectual capital and labour. 

Feel free to stop avoiding answering why Australia's birth rate has not been self sustaining for several decades. I am interested in how you reconcile that with your belief our std of living and employment opportunities are rising...


----------



## helicart (18 May 2009)

This will put a hole in Access Economics migrant operating surplus model......

*Skilled unemployment rises 48 per cent in March quarter*

May 18, 2009 - 6:42AM
                                                         More than 43,000 skilled workers joined the ranks of the unemployed in the opening months of this year, a survey shows.
     Skilled employment has plunged to its worst level since 2001 as a slowing economy drives down demand for trades in every category.


----------



## rederob (18 May 2009)

helicart
I admit I did not add each of the columns from the full report, and I admit I erred this once in that the figure at 20 years *does *represent the cohort outcome.  Next time I will have a coffee and check for accuracy before posting impetuously, as you say.  
That does not change the bottom line, which shows that in every year net migration has a positive outcome.
The other aspect which you just don't get is that the contribution of refugees is quite dissimilar to other categories due to their lower average age.   Accordingly, longer run data for the cohort would likely show the average adult refugee (at time of entry) to have made a net positive contribution.  Not surprisingly, it takes a long time for any child (migrant or otherwise) to reach working age, and their comparatively large number skew the data for the early years.


----------



## helicart (18 May 2009)

rederob said:


> That does not change the bottom line, which shows that in every year net migration has a positive outcome.
> 
> That's on the basis GSMs stay employed (see The Age link above) and our intake of humanitarians and refugees doesn't increase (which bleeding hearts aggressively petition to increase with scant regard for capacity to assimilate).
> 
> ...




Until you have objective data supporting that, observer bias reigns. 
The media like to hold up the few refugee children who get a good OP and become neurosurgeons and physicists....and from the data I have seen, Asian refugee children do better on average. 

But they like to suppress what is going on with the many who don't, such as is ever more common amongst Lebanese/Islamic and Sudanese communities....and ethnic based gang violence and crime.

One has to remain suspicious of why Access Economics only used a 20 years time frame. If a longer time frame would have benefited Labor migration policy, then you'd think they would have exploited that to allay public concern about excessive migration.


----------



## rederob (18 May 2009)

helicart said:


> The problem people like me have with people like you is your unblinking support of dill laws that deny the rights of Aussies to protect their std of living.....And the higher the number of migrants coming in under family parents and humanitarian/refugees visas, the more taxpayer money gets diverted from upholding our std of living......but anyone who talks about putting a ceiling on this stuff gets branded a racist by self righteous and emotionally labile guilt industry goons, like David Marr. The Marrs of the world wouldn't have a clue why net foreign liabilities are going up.....they just presume because they are sitting on easy street, Australia is a rich country.



What standards of living have reduced during our 200 years of immigration?  It's a line that gullible xenophobes might swallow, but few others.  
Unable to present a cogent case of your own you prefer to use derogatory terms for those with opposing views.  It's an unproductive and gutless way of debating.




> One has to remain suspicious of why Access Economics only used a 20 years time frame. If a longer time frame would have benefited Labor migration policy, then you'd think they would have exploited that to allay public concern about excessive migration.



First, the model was originally developed in the Howard era, and updated in 2008 to better incorporate longitudinal study results and changes to visa categories and support systems.  That aside, the original cohort delivers a net positive financial benefit for every out year, increasing year on year, so it becomes somewhat superfluous to prove the point further.


----------



## Joe Blow (19 May 2009)

All this blue text is driving me crazy. Helicart, please read this thread on using the quote tags correctly: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (19 May 2009)

Joe Blow said:


> All this blue text is driving me crazy. Helicart, please read this thread on using the quote tags correctly: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737




Agree totally Joe.

Blue is a lousy colour.

Would maroon be ok?

gg


----------



## Joe Blow (19 May 2009)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Agree totally Joe.
> 
> Blue is a lousy colour.
> 
> ...




GG,

There is no need for any colour but black. People should be making proper use of the quote tags to distinguish between what is quoted and what they have written.


----------



## Happy (19 May 2009)

helicart said:


> ...
> 
> But they like to suppress what is going on with the many who don't, such as is ever more common amongst Lebanese/Islamic and Sudanese communities....and ethnic based gang violence and crime.
> 
> ...




This is my worry too, and I would hate to be able to say: 'I told you so'


----------



## helicart (19 May 2009)

rederob said:


> What standards of living have reduced during our 200 years of immigration?  It's a line that gullible xenophobes might swallow, but few others.
> Unable to present a cogent case of your own you prefer to use derogatory terms for those with opposing views.  It's an unproductive and gutless way of debating.
> 
> hahahaha.....so gutless isn't derogatory?
> ...




You still haven't demonstrated how the study derived the bottom line, presumably because you have no idea, just like me.

And to repeat myself ad nauseum, you have consistently argued for more humanitarians and refugee migrants....and presumably you want more GSMs despite their employment prospects......and the Access Economics study reveals the fool's folly of such thinking...


----------



## helicart (19 May 2009)

Joe Blow said:


> All this blue text is driving me crazy. Helicart, please read this thread on using the quote tags correctly: https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2737




Joe, I read the whole thread, and there's no mention of how to appropriately position replies to individual points made in one post....is that reflection on the quality of debate normally carried out here?

And I am not inclined to copy and paste n+1 times, quote html such as 
{quote=Joe Blow;436734}
{/quote}

If you can suggest a quicker way around this issue, I am all ears.

Other vbulletin forums are big enough to prioritize the flow of an argument over the eye candy factor.


----------



## Calliope (19 May 2009)

The Tamil terrorists may have been defeated in Sri Lanka but they are alive and well in Australia.

And we can expect plenty more.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/acid-attack-home-invaders-still-unknown-20090519-bd2o.html


----------



## rederob (19 May 2009)

helicart said:


> You still haven't demonstrated how the study derived the bottom line, presumably because you have no idea, just like me.



Your assumptions have been poorly based, and this one is no exception.

You have not proved any of the points you raised (except when stating the bleeding obvious).  You have not disproved any of my points.  

You want me to respond to broad questions which you cannot link to the thread's theme, but ask repeatedly.

When cornered you change the topic.  

I have seen no evidence that migration is overwhelming our borders, nor (on the whole) that it has a deleterious impact on our society or economy.

You can continue to beat your drum here, but I am moving on.


----------



## helicart (19 May 2009)

rederob said:


> Your assumptions have been poorly based, and this one is no exception.
> 
> You have not proved any of the points you raised (except when stating the bleeding obvious).  You have not disproved any of my points.
> 
> ...




Yes, you have nothing new to add, and have failed every challenge to your myopic perspective.....there must be more naive minds elsewhere, for you to spin your unruly web. So adieu to you....


----------



## GumbyLearner (19 May 2009)

helicart said:


> myopic perspective




Well I don't think you could accuse rederob of being colour blind? :
But..

In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King.


----------



## helicart (19 May 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Well I don't think you could accuse rederob of being colour blind? :
> But..
> 
> In the land of the blind the one-eyed man is King.





In the immortal words of "The Blues Brothers" movie, Red is "On a Mission from God", though like a true atheist liberal progressive, that God is not the Father of Jesus, nor Allah......it is.....Himself....


----------



## GumbyLearner (19 May 2009)

helicart said:


> In the immortal words of "The Blues Brothers" movie, Red is "On a Mission from God", though like a true atheist liberal progressive, that God is not the Father of Jesus, nor Allah......it is.....Himself....




Are you insinuating that rederob may be a Megalomaniac?


----------



## helicart (19 May 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Are you insinuating that rederob may be a Megalomaniac?




Well....moreso a mega maniac.....


----------



## helicart (21 May 2009)

Of course, to folk of Red's calibre and education, this scenario would never unfold in Australia and is nothing for us innocentes to bother our simpleton heads about:

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25516657-2703,00.html

God help us from ever having the Reds of the world stand vigilant over our sweet a$$es......


----------



## Happy (25 May 2009)

> From ABC 25 May 2009
> 
> INFLUX PUTS STRAIN ON CHRISTMAS ISLAND
> 
> ...




Another day another boat, suppose after a while we will get used to it.

If this life risking procedure was met with 100% deportation rate and 25 years jail for the crew, problem would disappear overnight.


----------



## mastatrada (25 May 2009)

I invite anyone who had a problem with johnny howard's immigration policy to take a walk through Perth city centre and examine the tide of human flotsam that has washed up there. It has gone from being a clean model city to starting to resemble somewhere like Paris in both appearance and odor. It may not be politically correct to say things like that but the fact remains that immigration is destroying one of the last decent places to live in the world and nobody in a position of any power is willing to speak out against it for fear of sounding racist


----------



## Happy (25 May 2009)

mastatrada said:


> I invite anyone who had a problem with johnny howard's immigration policy to take a walk through Perth city centre and examine the tide of human flotsam that has washed up there. It has gone from being a clean model city to starting to resemble somewhere like Paris in both appearance and odor. It may not be politically correct to say things like that but the fact remains that immigration is destroying one of the last decent places to live in the world and nobody in a position of any power is willing to speak out against it for fear of sounding racist






How true, for the fear of being politically incorrect we allow our way of life to be adversely affected.

I wish those murdered, stabbed, raped by current wave of immigrants or their children, could personally sue the leaders of our country for being accessory.

Why don’t we try to appeal to cream of the humanity instead of letting anybody in?


----------



## rederob (25 May 2009)

mastatrada said:


> I invite anyone who had a problem with johnny howard's immigration policy to take a walk through Perth city centre and examine the tide of human flotsam that has washed up there. It has gone from being a clean model city to starting to resemble somewhere like Paris in both appearance and odor. It may not be politically correct to say things like that but the fact remains that immigration is destroying one of the last decent places to live in the world and nobody in a position of any power is willing to speak out against it for fear of sounding racist



So you are saying is that the odd tens of thousands of migrants arriving in WA during Howard's 4 terms in power have led to Perth's present problems?  Immigration to Australia peaked under Howard, so I reckon that's a fair view.




Happy said:


> How true, for the fear of being politically incorrect we allow our way of life to be adversely affected.
> I wish those murdered, stabbed, raped by current wave of immigrants or their children, could personally sue the leaders of our country for being accessory.
> Why don’t we try to appeal to cream of the humanity instead of letting anybody in?



There is a gulf between ignorance and political correctness that you have just nailed.


----------



## disarray (25 May 2009)

rederob said:


> So you are saying is that the odd tens of thousands of migrants arriving in WA during Howard's 4 terms in power have led to Perth's present problems?




a certain subsection of them are have had an over representative impact yeah. i remember when i was living in perth years ago i had never ever in my entire life heard of the crime of carjacking in australia. then all of a sudden there was a rush of them from a gang called the African Kings. guess where they came from. then it became all the rage in south west sydney. so something that never existed less than a generation ago is now a commonplace occurance in our major cities. what an "enriching" experience for us all. 



> There is a gulf between ignorance and political correctness that you have just nailed.




political correctness has become a form of ignorance now. it is a bigoted totalitarian thought policing ideology that brooks no dissenting view, logical examination or any form of challenge. does it rob?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (25 May 2009)

If you read your history of Australia, until recently each wave of migration experienced disadvantage, and had to work hard to overcome it.

Many never learnt to speak English.

It was the second generation in the schoolyard that assimilated, spoke English and became true blue Aussies.

This occurred in spite of people like Mannix trying to keep the Irish catholics separate from the Established church and State schooling.

In the last 30 years, thanks to Al Grassby and the Labor party this sequence has been interrupted by a political correct ideologically driven attempt to assimilate people as soon as they step ashore.

This has led to language, schooling and social ghettoes which will be to the detriment of Australia.

gg


----------

