Abbott - Cut immigration...

[Rorschach]

Assimilation must be part of the deal for new citizens
Maurice Newman
The Australian
12:00AM February 21, 2018

It’s remarkable how often former prime minister Tony Abbott sends the commentariat into a spin. Perhaps only Donald Trump attracts more media attention. Recently in an opinion piece on this page (“Australia Day debate: There are 364 other days to wear a black armband”, January 22) he forewarned us: “I’ll have more to say about scaling back immigration.” Perhaps, like Trump, his views on immigration jar with the progressive elite. No surprise there. To mention Abbott and immigration in the same sentence is bound to elicit howls of outrage given his successful record of “turning back the boats”.

But, then, migration is an emotional topic. Take John Howard’s 2001 election campaign launch speech when, following a wave of unauthorised arrivals, he famously declared: “We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come.”

That sent the open-borders lobby wild. Journalist David Hardaker, commenting on the ABC’s The Drum, suspected nothing but bigotry. “The debate around asylum-seekers,” he said, “has always been framed around the undeclared racism that infects so much of Australia. John Howard’s line, ‘We will decide who comes to this country …’ worked powerfully on those who suspected filthy foreigners were trying to overtake good, upstanding Australia.”

ABC Insiders anchor Barrie Cassidy saw the Abbott government’s uncompromising action on border security as cruel and intended “to prevent the suffering of others from spoiling our utopia, a utopia built on migration”.

Not really. The Howard and Abbott governments’ strict enforcement policies saw record numbers of authorised refugees settled. In contrast, the soft approach, with its chaos, criminality and confusion, so favoured by Labor and advocated by the ABC’s intelligentsia, put our official humanitarian commitments in danger.

What critics of controlled immigration neglect is that Australian citizenship is a many-splendoured thing. It should be prized and not given lightly. It offers opportunity, democratic government, the rule of law, an advanced economy, a generous welfare safety net, taxpayer-funded education, gender equality and a wonderful natural amenity. It’s why so many are willing to pay a fortune for it and risk their lives to get here.

The Australian public understands this. They may be generous of spirit but they’re not stupid. They share Howard’s view that however they arrive, “migrants are obliged to ‘be Australian’ and social integration must be pushed harder”. Clearly, among the latest wave of migrants, this is not always accepted. Crime rates among some cohorts are disproportionately higher than for the general population. Many of those of Islamic faith in particular remain consciously outside the mainstream, a pattern that has been obvious in Britain and Europe for decades. Sharia law, illegal cultural practices, not to mention terrorism, have caused the Australian people to reconsider the sources of our migrant intake, humanitarian or otherwise. And when the children of those migrants fail to assimilate, it adds weight to the perception that the problem of integration is more cultural than time-related. It’s not bigoted or intolerant to point this out.

Nor is it racist to mention that migrants from North Africa and the Middle East are three times likelier than Europeans and Asian migrants to be out of work in the first five years of settlement. Islamic migration experts blame the high unemployment rate on employers who shun applicants named Mohammed and women who wear hijabs. But many have little English and few skills, and with unskilled jobs increasingly lost to technology these people are at risk of becoming a permanent underclass. The fastest growing income-support pension is disproportionately drawn by people born in the Middle East.

The 1960s bestseller They’re A Weird Mob records the traditional, generous, if sometimes irreverent, welcome given to migrants 50-odd years ago. That spirit remains. But then, as now, there was an implied reciprocal obligation. Immigrants were expected to be grateful for their good fortune, to make efforts to speak English and to rapidly assimilate.

Then, in the 1970s, came the sudden shift to a multicultural model, with “ethnic” radio and “multicultural” television providing a “cultural bridge” to the arrivals’ new home. The priority for assimilation dissipated. Instead, institutionalised “diversity” promoted by a powerful industry dedicated to identity politics emerged. The result is division, growing intolerance and diminished national pride.

Because newly settled migrants are to be found away from the corridors of power or the trendy inner city and leafier suburbs, the commentariat has little contact with them outside the workplace. Not for them the daily issues of ethnic enclaves, the crime and the loss of amenity. For them it’s easy to signal compassion and tolerance, and to sneer at those who complain. Yet, while ordinary Australians see their living standards falling and their infrastructure failing, they observe new settlers receiving favoured treatment when it comes to welfare and justice. They watch the price of dwellings being bid beyond their reach by absentee immigrant landlords. Right or wrong, they feel discriminated against. Newly installed senator Jim Molan has picked up on this.

While skilled migration represents two-thirds of our total intake, the skills focus may need to be sharper. Our immigration policies should rely less on emotion and more on hard-headed experience. What is the point of accepting people as Australian citizens if they and their families want to live their lives as if they had never left the land of their birth?

The truth is social pressures have always been a feature of Australia’s many waves of migration. What makes the present pushback different and more intractable is the rise of state-backed multiculturalism, which encourages Balkanisation and aggravates cultural tensions.

Abbott or not, this debate has a long way to go and political correctness can’t settle it.

[Rorschach]

Honestly what is wrong with you people Maurice... people like you support the parties that gave us multiculturalism. You are the cause of the problem. Don't carry on about Assimilation and Integration, we had them as settlement policies... before multiculturalism. They were abandoned. They haven't dissipated.

Multiculturalism is the new settlement policy and has been since Fraser. Sure various governments have tinkered around its edges trying to make it more palatable... but they have all failed. The ALP and the Greens more than the Liberals and Nats support Multiculti... but they all support it to some extent. Only One Nation have spoken out about it, only One Nation want it abandoned.

When will all you elites own the problem and own the responsibility for it and stop pretending people need to assimilate or integrate. They don't. Children of migrants don't need to assimilate or integrate.... some cultures never will because to do so is to abandon their culture and their culture does not allow that.

The problem is not new, the problem has always existed with the policy. Back in the 70s I found out that when I walked into the front yard of Italian friends I was no longer in Australia... I was in Italy. They lived and worked in enclaves, inter-married, etc, etc, etc....

Multiculturalism is not about Assimilation or Integration, it is not about being Australian. Cultural elites do not see us as having a culture and cringe at the thought they are Australian. They hyphenate their nationality or just totally ignore the Australian part, just as some "Aboriginals" ignore their anglo roots.

Multiculti elites see our society as multicultural not Australian, they say to be Australian is simply to be Multicultural. That just having a piece of paper makes you Australian.

Well I'm proud to be Australian and proud of my country.

[cods]

Only One Nation have spoken out about it, only One Nation want it abandoned.



lets be a bit honest here Pauline is the only one who says what a lot of people are thinking..


most dont hit the nail on the head they twist it around so they mean all things to all men....

and life is different today... its not what we want but it is what it is...

we do need to pick and choose who comes here.... just reading forums like this one gives us a little insight into whats ahead.

it is a fact we are not all meant to interbreed...... it isnt really multiculturalism when each group divides off and creates its own little "world' based on what they left behind....well to me it isnt... a lot of migrants still send their children back to the old country to meet their partners.....

I think we are the only animal on the planet they does cross lines when it comes to interbreeding.......


birds migrate but the always stay with their own group and return to their natural habitat .. same with fish....we migrate as a group and try to take over anothers patch....

speaking for myself I am an ex Pom... yet I almost have never had an English friend since coming here...the ones I did have I wasnt fond of as they kept shoving what they thought was good about England down my neck.....I have always thought Australia was the best and still do...what I left behind I left behind... except maybe yorkshire pudding with the sunday roast..and my brother who is still going strong I am glad to say.

[Rorschach]

Breed?
Interbreed?
Culture is not race cods... didn't you know?

Multiculturalism is a settlement policy it isn't about race per se its about cultural identity and practices.

Hanson once said i don't care where they come from as long as when they are here they are Australians.

[The Mechanic]

Breed?
Interbreed?
Culture is not race cods... didn't you know?

Multiculturalism is a settlement policy it isn't about race per se its about cultural identity and practices.

Hanson once said i don't care where they come from as long as when they are here they are Australians.

Got my vote !!

[cods]

Breed?
Interbreed?
Culture is not race cods... didn't you know?

Multiculturalism is a settlement policy it isn't about race per se its about cultural identity and practices.

Hanson once said i don't care where they come from as long as when they are here they are Australians.

of course its about breeding......mixin g .. unless of course you prefer lots of little empires all within the one radius namely Sydney and Melbourne....

because thats what you will get....even now we have little Italy and little China in Sydney.. eventually we will have little borders...maybe even with gates and sentry boxes

...in case you hadnt noticed most of a bikie gangs are all multi culturally driven....

its a creeping thing... its so gradual you dont notice it until it overtakes you.

we have schools for Muslims also not a race. who knows what next.

[Rorschach]

We have lots of little Empires they are called ENCLAVES.

The breed within their cultures cods... they even go back to their country and arrange marriages.

Multiculturalism is about Multiple cultures existing in the one country. Cultural apartheid if you like, a fruit salad of cultures.

It aint about RACE....

[Outlaw Yogi]

I was brought up to believe in these left wing anti-Australian pro-wog agendas. I had an Aboriginal (Koori) foster brother, have an adopted (South) Korean sister, my 1st girlfriend was Indian X Fijian, when on the run/at war (from/with an outlaw club) my girlfriend was Papuan, and my last long term partner is/was half Aboriginal (Murri).

I can understand people (from elsewhere) wanting to come here, but I don't see why I/we should have to accommodate/look after the rest of the world's unwanted/problem people.
I've tried being considerate, but far to many of these blow in just abuse the sentiment, so I am now vocally anti immigration.

The larger our population gets the greater the competition for everything, from parking spots and road congestion to hospital beds and a decent place to sleep, eat and shit. And so we as a population become increasingly more aggressive.

If I was dictator there would be no more immigration to Australia from anywhere, period!
If our population is to grow, it should be done organically via breeding not artificially via importation. And if someone came out with a population reduction agenda, I'd think seriously about supporting it.

Currently at work (citrus picking) we have a heap of Coconuts from Vanuatu (and at times Tonga).
I don't have a problem with this because they earn their money for about 6 months and then go home. Picking is hard work and most Aussies are soft as melting butter. As I recently said to a French speaking Canadian backpacker hiding under a tree in a heat wave "Now you know why they have to get backpackers like you to do this job, because most Aussies would rather sit in an air conditioned office in a city".

But on the flip side, as I recently said to a work college commenting on unemployment "As long as we have immigration we'll have unemployment".

Y'know it's a shame Nick the Greek (Xenaphon) and Co sabotaged the cashless welfare card to be introduced in Bundy, because it might have forced some of the snow flakes and speed/ice junkies to take a job and build some character.

Only One Nation have spoken out about it, only One Nation want it abandoned.

Hanson has proposed cutting the immigration rate to 70% of current levels. Not good enough!
We need a zero or negative migration rate.

[Rorschach]

By every measure, we need to give immigration a brake
The Australian
12:00AM February 21, 2018

The main chancers who regularly declare Melbourne the most live­able city in the world must have a sense of humour. They most certainly don’t live in Melbourne.

Take it from me, Melbourne is a complete nightmare to get around. If you drive, it takes an age. If you take public transport, be prepared for the sardine-tin experience.

House prices are out of this world. The shopping might be good, but it’s impossible to park at many shopping centres. Hospitals and schools are overcrowded.

There are parts of the CBD where it’s easy to feel as if you are in another country — there’s not a lot of English being spoken.

If this is the most liveable city in the world, I’d like to see what’s unliveable.


I’m not Robinson Crusoe when I express these views. And let’s face it, Sydney is not much better.

The fact is Tony Abbott is really on to something when he calls for a significant reduction in the number of immigrants coming to this country. What I can’t understand is why a Coalition government hasn’t been on to this issue much sooner. Running a sensible and sustainable immigration program is as important as border control.

The government seems to be so self-satisfied with its achievement in stopping the boats that it has dropped the ball when it comes to establishing appropriate numbers and rules around both permanent and temporary migration.

Let’s be clear, the Migration Program numbers — the permanent intake — of 190,000 a year is way too high. And unless the government does something, these numbers will be the same for the next three years.

It just doesn’t make any sense for net overseas migration to make up most of the (excessive) population growth we are experiencing. Just look at the figures. Last year, it is estimated Australia’s resident population grew by 1.6 per cent.

The world’s population grew by 1.1 per cent. In Canada, the figure was 0.9 per cent, in France 0.4 per cent, in Britain 0.6 per cent and in the US 0.7 per cent.

At our current rate of growth, Australia’s population will be more than 38 million by 2050.

For a while, I had concluded that Home Affairs Minister Peter Dutton didn’t understand what he was dealing with. He would bang on about net overseas migration (which includes most temporary migration) being higher under Labor than under the Coalition government. Sure, NOM — immigration minus emigration — peaked in December 2008, not long after Labor was elected.

Yet the latest figures on NOM for the year ending June 2017 were 245,000 — an increase of 27 per cent from the previous 12 months. Yes, a 27 per cent increase. Pete, net overseas migration is out of control. And note that NOM increased by 31 per cent to NSW — read Sydney — and 23 per cent to Victoria — read Melbourne.

Here is a golden opportunity for the government to differentiate itself from Labor, which is determined to maintain immigration numbers, if not increase them.

Former academic Andrew Leigh MP has been sent out to quote some arcane studies about the effect of immigration on house prices and wages.

Here’s the thing: you don’t need a degree to realise that if you allow the population to grow rapidly, there will be pressure on house prices and urban infrastructure. And for workers whose skills complete with new migrants, there is less scope for pay rises. Without doubt, immigration is contributing to our low wage growth.

The government needs to get serious about cutting back the immigration intake, even though the universities are likely to kick up a stink. Note that overseas student education is a joint offering: a degree plus a pathway to permanent residence.

What the government has to appreciate is that the largest group of voters are incumbents, not new migrants or even migrants who have arrived in the past decade.

Even on this point, it’s not clear that migrant groups are in favour of large migrant intakes — the pull-up- the-ladder phenomenon.

We need to give our cities a break; we need to insist that new migrants culturally integrate and speak English well; we need to ­acknowledge the legitimate interests and views of incumbents rather than always favour new entrants.

It would be wise for the government to heed Abbott’s advice.

Yogi I have never heard Hanson change the PHON policy which is for zero net migration...
Excerpt from One Nation's latest Immigration Policy.
We live in the most arid continent in the world with a fragile ecosystem and on this basis we believe in zero net migration. By this we mean that we will adjust the immigration intake so that it leads to a healthy population profile after natural births and deaths are taken into account.

[Rorschach]

Tony Abbott calls on Peter Dutton to cut Australia’s migration intake
The Australian
7:12AM February 21, 2018

Tony Abbott has ramped up pressure on the Turnbull government to accept a drastic cut to the nation’s migration levels, saying Immigration Minister Peter Dutton could “manage numbers down quite quickly” to help ease local job market and housing affordability pressures.

The former Liberal prime minister last night made reducing immigration the main focus of his remedy to improve Australian livelihoods in an address to the Sydney Institute.

While giving credit to Mr Dutton for flagging last week that the immigration intake should be reviewed, Mr Abbott insisted reducing the current level from 190,000 to 110,000 a year was necessary “at least until infrastructure, housing stock and integration has better caught up”.

Dismissing any suggestion from political opponents that his proposal might be xenophobic or racist, Mr Abbott said scaling back immigration was the government’s “duty” to its citizens.

While he favoured a “bigger Australia” in the longer term, this did not rule out short-term cuts in the national interest for economic growth.

In his speech, parts of which were released in advance, the former prime minister said “something has gone badly wrong” with the immigration intake when only 30 per cent were proficient in English.

At the same time, he said jobs were harder to find because more foreigners were taking those available. Local wages remained static and the high immigration rates concentrated in cities had forced up house prices.

“My issue is not immigration, it’s the rate of immigration at a time of stagnant wages, clogged infrastructure, soaring house ­prices, and in Melbourne at least, ethnic gangs that are testing the resolve of police,” he said.

“It’s a basic law of economics that increasing the supply of labour depresses wages, and that increasing demand for housing boosts price.”

Mr Abbott said the “unreality” of political discourse was that no one until Mr Dutton’s comments last week was prepared to raise immigration as an issue solely in the control of the federal government.

Answering questions afterwards, Mr Abbott said Mr Dutton could “manage numbers down” quickly but said it could take years before structural changes allowed a return to increased migration.

Mr Dutton declined to comment beyond remarks made last week when he acknowledged problems caused by the concentration of migrants around Sydney and Melbourne, and spoke against bringing migrants who were “going to be a burden”.

Population expert Bob Birrell said Mr Abbott had a “powerful case” that could help the government ease economic pressures.

Mr Birrell, a former Monash University professor and now head of the Australian Population Research Institute, said the government had already acted to reduce skilled migration levels by a third but the “numerical terms” were still unclear.

He said integration was “undoubtedly a problem” when a large number of migrants on the skilled program could not get managerial positions.

Mr Birrell said that Mr Abbott had been consistent in his calls for reduced immigration even if his position was “heavily political”.


Scott Morrison needs to pull his head in and stop spouting the major party's accord on a big Australia.... Australia does not need to import skills... it needs to train the people already here.