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.