Flood of migrants overwhelm Australia's borders

[rederob]

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...

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]

I don't need to disprove anything.

So you base your views, on your views....how convenient...

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.

Infrastructure never used to be as critical for getting people to work, and distributing goods.

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?

Severl of my oft repeated points are that

- around 35 years ago, we began outsourcing manual and unskilled labor, to.......undeveloped countries...

- capital has been allocated away from R&D, industrial development, and globally competitive wages, to welfare...

So any benefit migration bestowed pre 1975 is more redundant post 75.

You seem to have difficulty grasping how everything ties together. Which is why you argue incessantly that I am off topic.


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.

Who's arguing 'from the outset'. What about from the 70s?

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

- 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]

Europe already has been overwhelmed by a flood of immigrants:

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

 

[rederob]

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]

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......

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]

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]

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]

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

 

[Calanen]

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]

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]

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]

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.