Posted on 07/13/2004 9:43:29 PM PDT by dennisw
What is the deal with Austalia's immigration policy? I've heard different things.
I've heard that its very limited in its absolute numbers, and very strict in that most are admitted through employment visas.
On the other hand, I've heard that like the United States they have a policy of mass immigration that is unpopular with the people yet imposed by the elites and is rapidly changing their demography from an Anglo-aboriginee society to an Asian one.
Does anyone know?
Good post.
From what I've heard, the latter is correct. Australia's political consensus on immigration has slowly been coming to an end these last few years; many people fear the dilution of their Anglo-Celtic heritage.
Aussie speaking here.
It's a little from column a and a little from column b.
Australia takes a fairly high number of immigrants - it's a policy that dates back to just after World War II, when it was realised we needed a larger population if we were to have any hope of surviving a future invasion. 'Populate or perish' was the call.
At that stage, we still had the White Australia Policy - we'd take large numbers of immigrants provided they were European. Much, much smaller numbers were taken from other places.
The White Australia Policy finally ended in the 1970s, and since that time a high proportion of immigrants have been Asians.
We take two main groups of immigrants - the majority come under employment visas, and are basically people with skills this country needs.
The second main group is refugees from various places.
Most Australians have no huge problems with immigration from these two sources.
If people have skills we need, then they are not taken jobs from people here. And we are quite willing to help *genuine* refugees - one of the biggest groups until recently, for example, were Afghanis fleeing the Taliban.
In fact, the genuine refugees tend to ultimately make very good citizens - because they are people who *know* how much better Australia is, from where they come from.
The problems are though that because we've been generous, the liberals want us to go even further. It's the old 'give an inch, take a mile' problem really - we've given an inch, and the left want us to now give a mile.
At the moment, we take *genuine* refugees after we've established that they are genuine and they are not likely to be a threat to our country.
The left want us to take anyone who says they are a refugee, and to wait until they are already here and out in the community before we check out their stories. Obviously, if they're not genuine, it'd be pretty hard to find them.
As for Asians - most of us are happy enough for Asians to come here, as long as they are understand that they are coming to join Australia as Australians - not to turn Australia into part of Asia.
And 99% of the Asian immigrants I know understand that.
Yes, and no, in my opinion.
Most people here, and most politicians still support immigration - for now.
What's changing is the idea of when we should start cutting back.
Remember that Australia, in terms of land area, is about the same size as the 48 contiguous United States.
We have 20 million people though, in an area where the US is getting close to what... 300 million?
Back in the 1950s, people were talking about Australia eventually having 200 million people. They were going to irrigate the interior, all sorts of plans.
Because they were talking about numbers like 200 million, a lot of people felt rapid immigration could go on for a couple of centuries.
The view has changed now - people have worked out that it'd be a lot harder to irrigate the centre than they used to think (and the environmentalists would go nuts at the idea on top of that). But nobody has really decided yet what number this continent can reasonably ultimately support. Maybe it's 100 million - in which case, immigration can be allowed to continue at current rates for a bit longer. But if it's only 40 million - we've got to start pulling up now.
Because we've got Indonesia just off the northwest coast, and the huge numbers of people in the rest of Asia, only a little bit further away, we do need a large enough population that first of all, we'll have a reasonable chance of defending ourselves if its ever needed, and secondly so we don't look "empty" to Asia.
Hmmm.
But I thought there wouldn't be much crime in Oz, what with their having gun-control and all?
Hmmm.
But I thought there wouldn't be much crime in Oz, what with their having gun-control and all?
You forgot your sarcasm tag on that. (I know you meant it sarcastically, but some may think you were actually serious.)
Well if its the case that most Australians now favor, or will soon favor some reduction in immigration then good luck. Because in the United States that has been the case for a while now, but our elites disagree; and what the elites want the elites get.
And to be clear, I'm not saying most people don't support immigration. In fact they do; I'm talking about mass immigration and opposition to that is always a mainstream position, and usually a majority mainstream position.
As to the size of Australia; you hit on the problem in that really the most habitable areas are on the coast, right?
As to Indonesia; well it seems a population race with them would be hopeless. I would think that Australian superiority in military technology, training and discipline, and alliance with the United States would be the best shield to protect you from a possible invasion.
Whatever happened to that ship (Norwegian was it???) where the Asians it rescued wound up taking over the ship and demanding entry into Australia a couple of yrs ago? I know you PM Howard rather bravely refused them at first, saying that Australia would not be coerced into accepting people, but I always assumed he would eventually cave to UN pressure and let them in.
Again, if Australia is anything like the US then even if popular will has turned in favor of reducing immigration then there will no doubt be some powerful elitist interests who will disagree (ethnic interest groups, immigration lawyers, politicians from the party that benefits from immigrant votes, business interests concerned about having cheap labor, the cult of multiculturalism, etc). If this is the case then you'll have a hell of time trying to get the will of the people reflected in the law.
Mr.Priest doesn't seem to be confused by a bunch of PCBS.
Wonder if we could get him to move to the U.S.?
That is a pretty big statement.Sure,politicians support it(thanks to the lobby groups who dictate the actual numbers allowed),but you would be lucky to poll even 25% of the population who do.There have been calls for an immigration referendum for years now,the politicians will never let that happen,because they know the result.
Remember that Australia, in terms of land area, is about the same size as the 48 contiguous United States.
But also remember that the majority of the Australian continent is uninhabitable.The South East is already cluttered,and it is still where 90% of immigrants flock to.Sydney's population grows by 1000 people per week,and water restrictions are consistently getting tighter.
But nobody has really decided yet what number this continent can reasonably ultimately support. Maybe it's 100 million - in which case, immigration can be allowed to continue at current rates for a bit longer. But if it's only 40 million - we've got to start pulling up now.
There have been alot of numbers thrown around.Some scientists think that at 20 million,we are already unsustainable and that the maximum was back at 15 mill.The mainstream view is between 25-30 million.
Because we've got Indonesia just off the northwest coast, and the huge numbers of people in the rest of Asia, only a little bit further away, we do need a large enough population that first of all, we'll have a reasonable chance of defending ourselves if its ever needed, and secondly so we don't look "empty" to Asia.
When it comes to defence,the idea that a bigger population will in anyway help our defences was given up 10 years ago.Our defence budget is bigger than Indonesia's even though we have less than 1/10th of their population,and the model we have been following for a while is the Israeli one.It's about superior technology and firepower,not standing troops.
Our immigration numbers vary from year to year,depending on what the lobby groups advocate to the government.It's usually around 100,000 pa.It is harder to get into Australia than the US,though many immigrants take advantage of the 'family migration scheme',ie,one 'skilled' immigrant comes in,then sponsors his/her extended family to come out under less restrictive criteria.It is through this family migration scheme that some sections of Sydney and Melbourne have turned into ethnic enclaves,immigrants speak no english and therefore only feel safe in their own little communities.It's the same phenomenon that occurs in most major western cities.......state sponsored multiculturalism.Still,it should be said that the two countries that account for the most immigrants into Australia are England and New Zealand.
and is rapidly changing their demography from an Anglo-aboriginee society to an Asian one.
Outside of Sydney and Melbourne,Australia could in no way be described as multicultural.At most,it is bi-cultural,or anglo-aboriginal as you say.Anglo-Celtic and Aboriginal faces are all the world is likely to see of Australia,as these two groups are the two who participate in sports,arts,films etc....the rest sit around debating what part of Australian culture they fit into as they cannot lay claim to either colonial or indigenous roots and therefore cling to the weird notion of a 'multicultural Australia'.Demography is slowly changing though,we are probably now at what the US was 20 years ago.The government has recently installed a 'baby bonus'($3000 payment) to encourage Australians to have more babies,and it is something that the multicultural lobbyists dont like.
This article is a bit over the top,though im sure the cop who wrote it has seen more of Sydney than i have.Still,i have lived in Sydney all my life and have never seen a 'middle eastern gang'.
As for demographics......at the present time Australia is about 70% Anglo-Celtic,20% 'other' European,7% Asian/Middle Eastern with the remainder being indigenous.Or,in simple mans terms,we are 90% 'white',though within this white group their is a big cultural divide between 'anglos'(aka colonials,which also includes germans/dutch/nordics as they were allowed entry under the 'white Australia policy') and non-anglos(post-1970 euro immigrants).
He didn't cave.
You're absolutely right,for the most part they do not differentiate between being Christians and Muslims once they arrive here,they are arab before everything else.
"He didn't cave"
Maybe not then but he seems to be caving in now according to latest news from Oz. From the Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/07/12/1089484305293.html
"Australia throws 9000 refugees a lifeline.
By Cynthia Banham
July 13, 2004
Thousands of refugees on temporary protection visas will be allowed to stay permanently in Australia, after federal cabinet agreed to a radical overhaul of the Government's asylum seeker rules yesterday.
It is understood the Government will announce as early as today that most of the 9000 temporary protection visa holders, many of whom have been living in the community for more than three years, will be able to apply for permanent residency.
The dramatic softening of the temporary protection rules comes after intense lobbying from the backbench and from within cabinet.
At least one frontbencher, the Employment and Workplace Relations Minister, Kevin Andrews, has lobbied for a more compassionate approach to refugees on temporary visas, according to Government sources.
The temporary protection scheme has been widely criticised since it was introduced in 1999, and tightened after the Tampa controversy in 2001 when 433 asylum seekers rescued by a Norwegian ship during the last election campaign were refused permission to enter Australia. Refugee and opposition groups argued that the visa system was draconian and left refugees with no certainty about their future.
Late last year, pressure began mounting on the Government from within its own ranks, beginning with the National Party MP John Forrest, whose Victorian electorate of Mallee has thousands of temporary refugees employed in local industries.
A number of other backbenchers have followed, particularly those in electorates where temporary protection visa holders are employed in jobs where workers are scarce, such as fruit pickers or meat workers, and where they have assimilated into the community.
Among the backbenchers to have spoken out in the party room are the conservative South Australian MP Patrick Secker and moderates Bruce Baird, Marise Payne and Petro Georgiou.
Other backbenchers calling for the Government to let the visa holders stay permanently have been the NSW National Party MP Kay Hull, Trish Worth, who holds the seat of Adelaide by a margin of 0.6 per cent, Christopher Pyne of South Australia, Judi Moylan from Western Australia and Victorian MP Sharman Stone.
According to some Coalition backbenchers, the temporary protection issue has become a sticky one for the Government in marginal electorates in Victoria, where the Coalition is polling poorly in the countdown to the federal election.
The decision follows a number of other immigration policy backflips by the Government, including its release of all but one child of boat people from mainland detention centres, and permitting 146 Afghans who have been held on Nauru for more than two years to come to Australia, as it winds back the "Pacific Solution".
Government MPs say there are indications that the Prime Minister, John Howard, has softened his line on the issue of asylum seekers since he won the 2001 election on the back of his tough border protection policies.
There has also been a noticeable change of attitude in the party room.
The change of heart has been made possible, however, by the reduction in the number of boat people arriving over the last three years."
Thanks for confirming that ... and your other posts.
big cultural divide between 'anglos'(aka colonials,which also includes germans/dutch/nordics as they were allowed entry under the 'white Australia policy') and non-anglos(post-1970 euro immigrants).
______________
Such as Greeks and Portugese I think. Italians too?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.