Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Flood of migrants overwhelm Australia's borders

Jump to new
disarray said:
actually you have rarely, if ever, provided any sort of links or supporting evidence for your frequently innacurate claims.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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


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."
 
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.
Click to expand...

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
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should have read Julia's link instead of asking an innocent question. :mad::mad::mad:
 
disarray said:
actually the data doesn't substantiate your points.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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 ....
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.....
 
muslim-british-demotivational-poster.jpg
 
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 ..
Click to expand...

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

Come on how many ?
 
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.....
Click to expand...
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 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....

What work are unskilled nesb's supposed to do when they get here?

Like Europe, there's many reasons not to increase intake of them now as opposed to 30+ years ago.

- we are no longer a manufacturing economy therefore have little need for unskilled workers. Further, we can get all the unskilled workers we need domestically (from the growing boganization welfare, divorce, and socialist values is causing) and from NZ.

- welfare is a disincentive for culturally challenged nesb migrants to work (read some European experience literature) and refer to the unemployment rates I quoted above...

- our compex tax and regulatory system is a disincentive for nesb migrant self employment.....and tax evasion when they are.

- we continue to export unskilled jobs overseas, not only manufacturing but IT, call centres etc where labor is cheaper because they don't have welfare states...

- there's few unskilled jobs requiring the use of one's hands alone. .....as Gittin's article elaborated, plant and equipment is required for most unskilled jobs....and Australia already relies on excessive foreign funding of private sector capital requirements......due to banks making an easier profit out of the resi property bubble.



As I keep saying, the European experience is a real life model of where your deluded beliefs lead....and Europe is fast backtracking.......

The higher the welfare burden, the higher the tax burden, and the less internationally competitive our wages are for skilled labour, hence the brain drain...


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.


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.....

though why bother when you can fast track into a developed nation hey Chairman Red?

Fighting for what you get helps build the character to value it and keep it....but seeing you took the convenient short cut, I understand that you don't get it....

Our nation only appears wealthy to leftie goons Chairman.....We can't even self fund our mining sector's growth. Capital has to be borrowed from overseas, or more equity sold to foreign interests...

But these are subjects not understood by socialists from cultures without a history of successful free markets...


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.


Yeah all that wealth was spent on welfare.....servicing debt on higher property prices brought about by dill left enviro nazi anti development government...


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.
Click to expand...

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

Sri Lanka's high commissioner to Australia, Senaka Walgampaya, said most potential refugees in Sri Lanka did not have enough money to pay people-smugglers.

As the Opposition yesterday renewed its attack on the Government's handling of the boatpeople issue, Mr Walgampaya said most of the Sri Lankan asylum seekers who had arrived in Australia had been Sinhalese economic migrants.

Referring to those affected by the fighting in Sri Lanka, he said: "These people don't have the financial resources to pay anybody to smuggle them into Australia. The people who have the financial resources have earlier left these areas."
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

God.....after reading this, David Marr is going to have a heart attack, after his nervous breakdown.... hahahhahaha
 
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.
Click to expand...
Perhaps I should have used the sarcasm icon Helicart, but I can see how it will be misinterpreted.
Cheers..
 

Similar threads

R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
sptrawler
Top