Flood of migrants overwhelm Australia's borders

[Bobby]

What's irrelevant Red?

HaHa ! you would think he could answer his own statements

 

[Green08]

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,

• (a) It results in over flowing of bank once in every two years.
• (b) It submerges the adjoining fields but generally does not prevent flow of
• drainage of fields.
• (c) It also does not create drainage congestion in the nearby populated areas.
• (d) Water level always remains at least one metre below plinth level of township as fixed by the Civil Authorities for Civil Construction of Industrial Complex and Residential areas.

(ii) Medium flood:- Level of the river where crops in the adjoining areas come under submergence and populated areas are encircled with flood waters but the flood waters remain below the following limits.

• (a) It results in overflowing of bank with flood frequency of once in 10 years
• (b) It submerges agriculture areas and enters in the residential areas blocking
• drainage systems for not more than 6 hours.
• (c) Floodwater in the Residential areas and Industrial complexes remain just
• below the plinth level as fixed by Civil authorities.

(iii) High flood:- Any flood level of the river, which is higher than danger level and
corresponds to return period of more than 10 years.
(iv) Danger level:- A level of the river depicting the stage of the river which if crossed by the flood water will start damaging crops and property and will affect the daily life of population. This level is to be taken as medium flood level or 0.3 m below plinth level which ever is less.

irrigation.up.nic.in/design_criteria.pdf

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]

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.

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.

What's irrelevant Red?

HaHa ! you would think he could answer his own statements

 

[rederob]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

...smug moral superiority...

Your critics have this in spades. They don't have much else.

 

[rederob]

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]

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.....

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.

I suppose you think it would be ok for Rudd to kill free market trade and demand we not sell our produce to the highest foreign bidder....you still don't get it Red that for as long as Asia and the Middle East remain overpopulated and underdeveloped, their elites will pay more for our food than we will.

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.

If you look at the revisions, the variance shows those projections up for the pie in the sky that they are. Dill lefties don't get that it is themselves that are the greatest resistance to population increase, via the unions. The unions will be the strongest and most militant force in upholding the std of living.

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.

hahahaha.....obligations to what? some dreamy eyed totally unrealistic rights waffle written by some upper middle class privileged chardonnay swilling elitist who dreams of a Marxist Utopia....

hey, let's see how long Gen XYZ Australians hold to those laws as their std of living drops through the floor. Maybe you want us to get loans from the IMF and World Bank to hold up our std of living?

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?

If you think about it a bit longer Red, I am sure you'll find a way.....

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]

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]

helicart

A good student asks clever questions.
Yours are very average.

A good student doesn't stay a student for life Red.....they eventually leave home, get into the real world, and understand there's no free lunch, no matter what socialist ideals they dreamt of when cocooned in a sheltered existence....

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.

A well educated person rarely holds to absolutist beliefs like, 'our international obligation', without applying a reality test to that belief.....that's why we have lawyers Red....to addend contractual clauses to laws poorly conceived by poppycock idealists, such as granting everyone who thinks their health and safety is compromised if they don't come and live in Australia.....hahahahha

But you are obviously blissfully ignorant of how reality panel beats dill laws into something pragmatic or discards them as a bad joke....


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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

And here's some more logic for you......Australia can't carry more people and simultaneously treat environmentalism like a religion.

Example.....Your current Prime Minister, the one and only Chairman Rudd, in his wisdom, belief in environmentalism, and no doubt personal ambition to become Emperor of the Universe, canceled the construction of the Wolfdene Dam in SE Qld in order to gain the green vote in the 1989 Qld State election. The foresight of that one decision alone has done more to cap the population in the area than anything else.. That is one reason why left leaning enviro socialists are naive and internally twisted in a morass of garbled and conflicting beliefs. They want to save the (overpopulated) world and they want to save the trees, and the whales, and the furry ringtailed possums and koalas. hahahahaha.....halllooooo....like, meanwhile, back on planet earth


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.

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]

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.