[sydney3000]

tor, on 04 February 2010 - 09:39 PM, said:

You think increasing racism is a good thing because it might reduce immigration rather than having a serious discussion about immigration? That is how I read your first statement.

I don't think encouraging people to act and think stupidly is a particularly efficient way of solving problems.

I didn't say that. I said "any pre-existing rise in racism" could be used to get to the goal.

[tor]

sydney3000, on 04 February 2010 - 09:43 PM, said:

I didn't say that. I said "any pre-existing rise in racism" could be used to get to the goal.

Fair enough. Seems a slippery slope to me though, I'm not a fan of the end justifying the means.

[sydney3000]

I despise it but when you are surrounded by idiots you are pressured to put aside your integrity on occasion for the greater good. There is always the risk that doing so corrupts you permanently.

This post has been edited by sydney3000: 04 February 2010 - 11:45 PM

[Sacamento]

Tinpusher, on 04 February 2010 - 10:44 AM, said:

Tom may +1 you but I took it back.

Most of the racist scum are just that - scum.

Our main immigration source are poms. You Hansonites don't rubbish the Anglo Saxon immigrants do you?




http://www.immi.gov....ram-2008-09.pdf


http://www.immi.gov....sheets/17nz.htm

The whole stop migration because its bad economics is just a veil for xenophobia.

The nationalist scum wouldn't utter a peep if immigration doubled and all the immigrants were white caucasions.

If it walks like a duck, quacks and...

Yeah I'll rubbish poms occassionally. They can usually take it too they have a good sense of humour. It's a numbers thing for me. I want immigration down to about 30-50k. Seeing as we are very multicultural it would be unfair to change the ratios of races.

Well I think you'll find most Australians want immigration reduced. So I guess we're all "Hansonite" scum. Well, 70% odd.

[sydney3000]

Sacamento, on 05 February 2010 - 12:10 AM, said:

Seeing as we are very multicultural it would be unfair to change the ratios of races.

Stuff fairness. Do we promote obesity because we still have a minority of obese people? I don't consider flooding the planet with more of an already on-a-global-basis highly represented people as fair just because they are a minority locally.

Mod Edit: Sorry the thread was going along fine, dont bring race into it!

This post has been edited by tom: 05 February 2010 - 05:17 AM
Reason for edit: While it was in jest it was racism nonetheless

[Sacamento]

sydney3000, on 05 February 2010 - 01:37 AM, said:

Stuff fairness. Do we promote obesity because we still have a minority of obese people? I don't consider flooding the planet with more of an already on-a-global-basis highly represented people as fair just because they are a minority locally.

Swedish women only, this way please!

saca, you ask that you be allowed to discuss immigration, please stick to it then and dont bring certain racial groups into it.

I understand you were responding to above posts but inappropriate.

This post has been edited by tom: 05 February 2010 - 05:19 AM
Reason for edit: Racism

[tom]

Sacamento, on 04 February 2010 - 04:31 AM, said:

Well maybe if this country put in decent infrastructure and didn't have such a corrupt housing industry these "racists" wouldn't be so "racist".

Well I thought I should go back to the original statement so I can explain myself as others I think have lost saccas meaning along the way, actually who am I to say what his intended meaning was but to me the ordinary meaning of the above statement is as follows and this is why I agree with it:

Ordinary meaning:

With sufficient infrastructure and a government which actually knew how to build a "big" Australia we would not have people claiming it is immigration causing high house prices, it is immigration causing the trains to run off schedule and be packed, it is immigration causing environmental degradation etc etc etc.

We would not have these people claiming this because we would have improving house prices with cheaper infrastructure built by our new Australians and scale like the US has, we would have improving public infrastructure again due to scale, we would also have a better natural environment if we got in and spent some coin on it.


Why I agree:

It is not immigration that is causing the problem but politicians, these same politicians as likely as anyone jump on the anti immigration line to fuel support for themselves. They are lowlife in propogating this but people do get caught up in it. They dont make racist comments but they do talk about being harsh on people smugglers etc calling them despicable things when they probably do more good for humanity than I do. What they need to do is come out and say look at these poor bastards can we find it in our hearts to give them a home. Lets see what they have been through and decide. Not turning boats around and all the shit they do to look like they are tough on immigration.

We have a nation that has sufficient resources for many many more people, we have only started to scratch the surface but with government incompetance we could just as easily get poorer over time.

You want a big nation you have to build it not just bring in immigrants. Our governements incompetance is wearing thin on me. Maybe I am ready to turn leftie. I would not do so well in my cirle of friends and work collegues that is for sure.....

Excerpt from The light on the hill speech, 12 June 1949 by Chifley. I grabbed this off wiki

Quote

"I try to think of the labour movement, not as putting an extra sixpence into somebody's pocket, or making somebody Prime Minister or Premier, but as a movement bringing something better to the people, better standards of living, greater happiness to the mass of the people. We have a great objective - the light on the hill - which we aim to reach by working the betterment of mankind not only here but anywhere we may give a helping hand. If it were not for that, the Labour movement would not be worth fighting for."

Chifley was for immigration and building a big Australia, but he also understood you had to build things to reach this aim. Not sure that I agree with his idea on nationalising banks but hey, maybe he understood what affect easy credit might have on ordinary Australians?

[Sacamento]

tom, on 05 February 2010 - 02:09 AM, said:

.....

.....

Chifley was for immigration and building a big Australia, but he also understood you had to build things to reach this aim. Not sure that I agree with his idea on nationalising banks but hey, maybe he understood what affect easy credit might have on ordinary Australians?

It's a real shame that you have to articulate it so verbosely without half the world turning feral and labelling you a kkk member or something.

[tom]

Sacamento, on 05 February 2010 - 02:39 AM, said:

It's a real shame that you have to articulate it so verbosely without half the world turning feral and labelling you a kkk member or something.

Sorry I am always verbose, not just about immigration.

I suppose being more frugal with my words:

Our government is continuing to bring in lots of immigrants but fail to invest in the infrastructure necessary for Australians to enjoy the lives we have become accustomed to.

The government also understanding that anti immigration sentiments exist in the community take a tough line on refugees and other small groups of immigrants, which further fuels anti immigrant sentiment. SOmeone in power has to come out and explain we are building a big Australia lets get on with it and welcome our new citizens who are necessary in order for us to build a great nation.

This is exactly what Chifley did for the Snowy Hydro Scheme. It was clear these people were building something great for the nation. Now we sit around and debate about rain water tanks instead of buiding the infrastructure we need to grow and patching things up in the worst ways possible.

I have gone verbose again sacca, I really am hopeless

[Sacamento]

tom, on 05 February 2010 - 03:00 AM, said:

Our government is continuing to bring in lots of immigrants but fail to invest in the infrastructure necessary for Australians to enjoy the lives we have become accustomed to.

That almost sounds like it's some sort of prima donna mentality.

When as you would probably agree in this massive land of ours it's not even remotely unreasonable for everyone to have a 1/4 acre block with a decent house on it for a fair price, say 3-4 times income and trains all over the place to take us to work.

[tom]

Sacamento, on 05 February 2010 - 04:06 AM, said:

That almost sounds like it's some sort of prima donna mentality.

When as you would probably agree in this massive land of ours it's not even remotely unreasonable for everyone to have a 1/4 acre block with a decent house on it for a fair price, say 3-4 times income and trains all over the place to take us to work.

It's not prima donna.

I expect that a country as wealthy as ours should have decent public transport, enough water, power and roads and enough area with sufficient infrastrucutre to allow urbanisation. We have plenty of land, but this does not make us a big Australia.

We have to get things done if we want a big Australia. It is not immigration that is causing us the problems it is infrastructure investment and public policy which directs capital from productive parts of the economy to unproductive.

[Bernard L. Madoff]

sydney3000, on 04 February 2010 - 11:42 PM, said:

I despise it but when you are surrounded by idiots you are pressured to put aside your integrity on occasion for the greater good.

I've read certain Germans espoused that view in the 20s and 30s and they rocketed to popularity. When the remaining ones were getting their necks stretched at Neuremburg in '45 and '46 some vever changed their view.

[Bernard L. Madoff]

Rationalisations:

http://www.smh.com.a...8585185930.html

Quote

THEY shave their heads, wear Southern Cross tattoos and drape everything - from their web pages and bedrooms to their rhetoric and their bodies - in the livery of Australian nationalism.

Meet the teens and young adults of the Southern Cross Soldiers: white, Australian and willing to violently defend "their" country.

"We are not racist, just patriots. Out to set it straight, there is only one ethnicity in Australia, Australian," read a statement on all SCS MySpace club pages.

Their profile pages are littered with slogans such as "Aussie pride in my mind, Aussie blood is my kind" and "proud to be Australian".

Photos show Caucasian teens drinking, posing and, in many cases, wearing black-hooded jumpers with "SCS" emblazoned on the front, "Aussie" stitched on one sleeve, "Pride" on the other.

Tyler Cassidy, the 15-year-old shot dead by police in Melbourne on Thursday, boasted of belonging to this group.

Victoria Police say they are aware of the SCS. Last month a self-described co-leader of Tyler's Melbourne chapter said members included neo-Nazis and relatives of bikie gang members.

The group stood for "Aussies", said the leader, known as Adds. "All these people that are coming over to our country that aren't Aussies are trying to take it over. We're just trying to put the word out that we don't like it," he said.

A friend of Tyler, Amelia, told The Sun-Herald the teen was caught up in the "wrong crowd".

She said the anniversary of his father's death had only been a week before the shooting.

"A lot of shit was going on and he was scared because he was only 15 and involved with alcohol, knives and f---ed-up people. He probably felt like he was alone and had no one."

A fierce debate on ultra-right racist website Stormfront.org was sparked by Tyler's shooting, with some writers criticising SCS for adopting US "gangsta" culture.

One contributor, Aryanne, said he had known Tyler. "He was a scrawny child who's father had just died of cancer," he wrote. "He was having an obvious psychotic episode and he was known to the Northcote police for having them."

[Silver Surfer]

Tinpusher, on 05 February 2010 - 05:02 AM, said:

Rationalisations:

http://www.smh.com.a...8585185930.html

One a the EX guys at work used to spread his bile re race at work.

I told him to shut the hell up. He did.

I then discovered him posting on Storm Front.

So I fired his dumb arse.

He threatened me of course. I told him straight, you do what you have to do, and so will I.

Needless to say he did nothing.

[Bernard L. Madoff]

Silver Surfer, on 05 February 2010 - 05:30 AM, said:

One a the EX guys at work used to spread his bile re race at work.

I told him to shut the hell up. He did.

I then discovered him posting on Storm Front.

So I fired his dumb arse.

Good on you.

White Nationalists generally aren't the brightest (the rank and file lemmings as opposed to the manipulative megalomaniacs that run the lemmings)

Quote

"Many have an IQ close to my shoe size. Most of them are simply failures: failed pupils, people who dropped out of school or their apprenticeships, alcoholics that can't find a foothold anywhere else, thugs. But every local organisation has three to five men who don't have criminal records. They're the ones sent to face the press or man information stands.

http://www.telegraph...in-Germany.html

[wulfgar]

About 600,000 people would gained residency over the last 4 years, that would be correct. But also many people leave Australia as well, about 300,000 on a permanent basis. So net migration to Australia would have perhaps been around 300,000 for the 4 years at best.
A big problem would be the caliber of migrant. For starters many that come here are ones that couldn't qualify for Europe and America. Some actually come here come here because gain Aus residency makes a European or American target so much easier.
Another question is family reunion. A third of migration is this, just cause one person qualifies, do we really want their less than capable relatives as well?
Personally I'm in favor of less migration. Over a century ago an attempt was made to give Australia a national identity. I don't like seeing a level of migration which aims to satisfy purely materialistic aims. Or we'll end being the same relative junk heap, we were in the 19th century.

Maybe an IQ test for migrants would be handy? A block test would be handy, that way we could screen out Kiwis.

[Turkey]

wulfgar, on 15 February 2010 - 10:16 PM, said:

Some actually come here come here because gain Aus residency makes a European or American target so much easier.

Are you sure about about that? It also takes 4 years before you can apply for Aus citizenship now so you have to be really patient.

Quote

Another question is family reunion. A third of migration is this, just cause one person qualifies, do we really want their less than capable relatives as well?

I suggest looking at a skilled immigration points calculator. It's hardly a formality to get a family member in. If you want to get parents in, > 50% of the children have to be living in Australia and then a fair bit of money has to be paid and it takes a few years (and loads of money for a fast-track application).

Quote

Maybe an IQ test for migrants would be handy?

Again, check the skilled migration points calculator. Would you qualify?

[Turkey]

I've butted heads with the racists on CC on this topic so please don't play the race card on me ... but anyway, here goes.

I look at immigration simply as part of the numbers game along with birth / death rates - I'm not interested in any "immigration will stuff up our culture" nonsense (and I'm an immigrant myself).

If we use population growth, either via births or immigration to keep demographics the way we want(e.g. a certain ratio of young or working people to old and retired people) we are simply engaging in another (oh noes!) pyramid scheme. I believe it's simply impossible to keep adding people infinitely when Australia and the Earth and its resources are finite.

If we can agree that you can't keep doing it forever, then why wait for it to be a total cock-up before doing anything? There are plenty of examples where people knew what they were doing would cause problems later on but did not care because later generations would face the consequences (e.g. over-fishing).

Look at the title of this forum, isn't the idea to find a population that is sustainable; my definition of sustainability would be to find an equilibrium population level. The question currently being asked is what birth rate and immigration level is necessary to keep demographics where we want it? I would change the question to what does the birth rate (and tax and benefits policy to influence the birth rate), immigration rate and retirement age need to be to stabilise the population but still provide a reasonable level of social benefits?

[urchin]

tor, on 04 February 2010 - 09:39 PM, said:

I don't think encouraging people to act and think stupidly is a particularly efficient way of solving problems.

Well I guess a career in politics is out for you then...