The American press is beating the drums to convince voters that everybody is in favor of amnesty these days. It's the latest dance craze! Yet, in the rest of the English-speaking world, public opinion is more anti-immigration. Here's a story from a year ago:
Half of Australians want end to immigration: poll
AFP News – Tue, May 22, 2012
Some 50 percent of Australians want an end to the nation's immigration programme because they believe the country has too many people, a poll showed on Tuesday.
The survey of 2,000 people, conducted for the tabloid Sydney Daily Telegraph newspaper, found 51 percent thought "our population is too high (and) we should stop immigration".
Australia has some 23 million people, compared to 19.6 million a decade ago.
Canberra set its immigration programme for the year to June at 185,000 places, with another 13,750 slots available to refugees on humanitarian grounds.
But in the poll only 32 percent of respondents felt Australia should welcome more immigrants and almost two thirds, some 65 percent, said "migrants should adopt the Australian way of life".
The responses revealed a marked swing away from the more tolerant attitudes of previous surveys conducted in 2005, 2001 and 1995, the newspaper said.
Immigration expert Bob Birrell said fears over job security in the shaky global economy and local pressures on infrastructure were behind the shift in opinion.
Australia has been hugely prosperous recently because of the natural resources boom. But it doesn't have much water.
Posts
28 comments:
Water...or arable land.
Australia is at an odd stage of delayed impact. Walk through the centre of any of our big cities and it's very racially mixed, and yet our federal parliament is almost 100% white. I'm not exaggerating. The contrast is amazing.
Our politics is largely a kind of pretend multi-culturalism. The population is increasingly mixed, but while it's compulsory for politicians and public figures to praise multi-culturalism, our institutions and systems of law are still pretty much entirely based around the core 'anglo' culture.
Demographics will catch up with us of course which is when it will get interesting.
When I was a school-boy, in England in the 1970s, I was always taught that 'Captain James Cook "discovered" Australia.
- As I grew older it dawned on me that this patriotic claim was almost certainly not true (though it did fill a need for a British Columbus).
Australia MUST have been known to the Javanese or Indonesians, whatever, who were a culture with a high degree of civilsation (basically, they had everything the west had in the middle ages and before).
If the Javanese knew about Australia, then the Indians must have too.
Well, anyway, my point is that only after whites did all the grunt work of building up something that was dismissed as a worthless, parched wasteland, does the entire third world want to move in on it.
They better. Or Australia will turn into an Asian colony.
What century are you guys living in?
The water nonsense illustrates classically the ineptitude of governments.
Or is it still passe on Sailer's blog to suggest that anyone other than government might provide such services? I must be some sort of mad, hopelessly individualistic free market type, right?
CUCKOO
Yet Australia voted Labor, and will get mass immigration good and hard. If you want ANY chance at limiting it (you cannot stop the elites from having SOME mass immigration) you have to make sure a more conservative party takes power. ANY Liberal, Left, Labor, Democratic party will have lots and lots of White women at the top (think Julia Gillibrand) and will naturally, pursue the HATE HATE HATE of White beta males, who are irrelevant to most White women's lives (because as Steve points out, delayed or non-marriage makes them irrelevant).
As Charles Murray points out, only the upper class marries and STAYS MARRIED, though with tolerated discreet mutual affairs. And those males Beta to the core are not threatened by mass immigration.
The basic equation of modern Western Life is Barack Obama + Sandra Fluke = diversity stomping on the face of White beta males forever.
Half seriously if you made every "vibrant" female immigrant drop-dead sexy, you'd see White women rail and demand an end to mass immigration. But instead they get cheap/ugly nannies whom their boyfriends and husbands won't even look at, and screw over those icky blue collar and lower White collar men.
It has a hell of a lot of water.....sea water that is.
Nuclear desalination is the obvious answer. Australia has a lot of uranium, and a lot of interior that would be a good place to deeply, deeply bury radwaste.
"some 65 percent, said "migrants should adopt the Australian way of life"."
And what if they don't? What are you going to do about it, punk? No one has ever been able to answer that. Plus, all the mechanisms to get someone to adopt the local way of life are considered "insensitive" or intolerant, so they aren't used.
That's a 17% population increase in a single decade. Do people really fathom how huge and unsustainable an increase that is? 200,000 new immigrants a year equates to 5 million new immigrants in a single generation, meaning that non-ethnic Anglo-Celtic Australians will comprise well over another 20% of the population in just a generation's time.
The attitude of the Left is frightening. They justify the Supreme Court locking in a right to gay marriage due to the alleged shift in public opinion. But while public opinion on gay marriage, they want the government to ignore the very clear opinion of the people on immigration.
"A total of 42 boats carrying 3,261 asylum seekers have arrived so far this year, causing Australia's refugee detention budget to spiral to more than Aus$1 billion (US$1 billion)."
$300,000 per asylum seeker. I'd guess a plane ticket back to Sri Lanka would cost about $1,000 per. A billion dollars is real money in a country with only 23 million people.
That means the other half wants more legal immigration.
51 is just barely the majority.
How depressing. So many fools down under.
"The water nonsense illustrates classically the ineptitude of governments." - the free market can't magic water into existence any more than anyone else can, and here in America for example it heavily relies on externalities when it comes to the water situation.
Desalinization is too expensive in terms of energy and cost to the environment to be workable, and why spend all that so that foreigners can help themselves to your country in the first place?
I done must ask.
If a married woman who's fully devoted to the raising of her children is a 'housewife', how come a married woman who works in an office is not an 'office-wife'? How come a married woman who works in a factory is not a 'factory-wife'? How come a married woman who works in a mall is not a 'mall-wife'? How come a married woman who drives a bus is not called a 'bus-wife'?
How come only the married woman who is devoted to raising her children full-time has a place attached to her, even though a 'housewife' is actually freer to move abut and around from place to place during the day. At work, you have to be stuck at work for 8 hrs.
i believe i posted a similar poll a while ago in the comment section on this blog. is this the same one or is it a new, re-confirmation of it?
australia's population growth is bizarre, as was characterized by poet mark o'connor in this excellent big immigration smackdown http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/lifematters/big-australia/4213144). this country's economy is primarily predicated on digging crap out of the ground and selling it to geo-strategic adversaries, so the idea of a 'big australia' being an economic advantage, if not a necessity, is completely nonsensical, in the same way the idea of a 'big UAE' or a 'big oman' would be.
now watch the big real estate and business communities, aided by internal fifth columnists and their associated ilk stomp their feet in response to this and hop up and down while lecturing all of us about alleged 'skills shortages', 'economic growth', 'nation of immigants', 'spectre of hanson/oldfield', etc, etc.
oh nevermind, it's what i had posted last year. soz steve.
"That means the other half wants more legal immigration. 51 is just barely the majority."
No, that's 51% who basically want zero immigration. The article didn't go into details, but it's likely that a much larger percentage want to cut immigration rates substantially.
"Yet Australia voted Labor, and will get mass immigration good and hard. If you want ANY chance at limiting it (you cannot stop the elites from having SOME mass immigration) you have to make sure a more conservative party takes power."
Actually the "conservative" party in Australia appears to have forced the government to set "refugees" loose in the community rather than keeping them offshore or giving them to Malaysia. From the article: "Immigration Minister Chris Bowen said the rush this year was 'unsurprising' given the failure of a planned refugee swap deal with Malaysia in 2011 intended to deter people smuggling, after the High Court of Australia struck it down. The government was forced to abandon offshore processing of asylum-seekers and release many detainees to live in the community after the conservative opposition blocked attempts to get around the ruling."
I suspect immigration is one of the key issues behind Labor's recent demise in Australia. Labor (or Labour as it used to be) was indeed the worker's party, and enforced a "whites only" immigration policy which was in effect up until the '60s.
The current Labor mob are, however, no longer representative of ordinary working people - more a party of the leftist elite. On the other hand the conservatives (who used to be the pro-immigration side) is these days taking the opportunity to grab traditional Labor supporters through immigration restriction policies.
The Australian Population Party was set up to address that concern ignored by the major parties:
The Stable Population Party is a sustainability party with a major focus on population. We are equally concerned with environmental, economic and social wellbeing.
Population is the critical issue suppressed by all federal parliamentary parties and much of the mainstream media. Our grassroots community party formed in 2010 to give all Australians a choice on population and therefore the sustainability of the environment, economy and quality of life we enjoy and pass on to our children and grandchildren.
Population growth is already linked to all of Australia's major problems.
6 reasons to vote for a stable population:
Relieve overstretched infrastructure, including hospitals, schools, roads and public transport
Ease cost of living pressures, including housing, energy, water and transport charges
Encourage education and training, to provide job opportunities for all Australians
Protect our environment, including food, water and energy security, native bushland and animal habitat
Minimise overdevelopment, including high-rise and sprawl
Create a more productive and innovative economy, to sustain and enhance prosperity
Population is not a single issue, it is the everything issue.
We live in a finite world so can’t grow forever. A stable population is necessary, and the sooner we act, the easier it will be to manage Australia's growing environmental problems and resource scarcity.
Our economy is completely reliant on a healthy environment in order to function. Economic sustainability and intergenerational quality of life through the sustainable use of Australia's food, water and energy resources is our primary moral responsibility. We should not be using Australia as an overpopulation safety valve for the rest of the world, as this has no positive impact on global overpopulation. We should focus our foreign aid wherever possible on female rights and education, and on opportunities for women and couples to access voluntary family planning services to help prevent unwanted pregnancies.
Research confirms that over 70 percent of Australians reject the Liberal / National / Labor / Greens / Katter 'big Australia' policy outcome of around 36-40m (and rapidly rising) by 2050 . Yet until now we've had no choice. Powerful business lobby groups are pushing for this rapid population (customer) growth. But our grassroots community party echoes the voice of the people. Why?
We won't resolve any of Australia's major problems until we first resolve 'the everything issue'.
http://www.populationparty.org.au/
"Demographics will catch up with us of course which is when it will get interesting."
I wonder what will happen to all the Aboriginal arse-kissing when that happens. The arse-kissing is a function of Anglo white guilt. Chinese and Indian MPs aren't prone to that.
"Yet Australia voted Labor, and will get mass immigration good and hard."
Not this election. Labor is very likely going to get voted out of office. Abbott promised in 2010 to limit immigration to 170k, but that's where the figures were projected to go anyway (see the following graph). My guess is that he will do nothing on the immigration issue.
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/15population.htm
Like in the UK, both major parties use illegal immigration as a dog and pony show to distract from the massive legal immigration that people have a problem with. It will be interesting to see when a major English speaking country has a moratorium on immigration, or better yet a mass deportation. This may embolden the others. It seems that everywhere there is a large and growing dissatisfaction with immigration.
Here is Rupert Murdoch on the subject this morning:
"“The way they [Labor] are talking about the 437 [sic 457] is pretty disgraceful and racist. But I’m a big one for encouraging immigrants, I think that’s the future, a mixture of people,’
“Just look at America, it’s just fantastic. You have difficulties for generational migrants sometimes, if there are too many from one area, but you know they meld in a couple of generations and it leads to tremendous creativity in the community.”
What could possibly go wrong?
Gilbert P.
Rupert Murdoch: “Just look at America, it’s just fantastic. You have difficulties for generational migrants sometimes, if there are too many from one area, but you know they meld in a couple of generations and it leads to tremendous creativity in the community.”
This is why there used to be a retirement age. What Murdoch says is complete and utter rubbish. Import people from low economic output, high crime areas - wherever they land, economically depressed and high crime ghettos and barrios spring up.
Import people from areas significantly genetically distinct from the Euro population and they maintain their own balkanized suburbs. There's a reason that Chinatowns are called such.
Murdoch has been a billionaire for a long time. He bought Marc Rich's share of 20th Century Fox for $250 million in 1984, which is an indication of how wealthy he must have been even when the Anglosphere was largely white, some 30 years ago. I doubt he has ever had any meaningful contact with the migrants of which he is a booster. I guess we'll all eat cake.
"Like in the UK, both major parties use illegal immigration as a dog and pony show to distract from the massive legal immigration that people have a problem with."
exactly, couldn't have put it better myself. but don't make the mistake of falling for the mendacious rhetoric on asylum seekers, either. the 'boat people' don't actually arrive in this country illegally. they would if we withdrew from the refugee treaty but as it stands it's not illegal to seek asylum by boat.
"..with another 13,750 slots set aside for refugees.."
Question?
How many "slots" does Japan, South Korea, Singapore, Israel, Costa Rica, etc, "set aside" for "refugees"?
Why does this "refugee" nonsense only fall on white western nations? We have nothing to gain from letting these people in. Nor do i see how Australia is to blame for the problems of Somalia, etc.
Why are only the western countries suckers for this nonsense?
A 17% population increase in ten years. That is incredible. That would be more then 50 million people added to the USA's population.
If for some reason the largely arid country of Australia needs more consumers of its water and other resources, why not just try to increase the birthrate instead?
"200,000 new immigrants a year equates to 5 million new immigrants in a single generation, meaning that non-ethnic Anglo-Celtic Australians will comprise well over another 20% of the population in just a generation's time."
At that rate there will be no opposition from Australians to immigration owing to a lack of Australians.
"If for some reason the largely arid country of Australia needs more consumers of its water and other resources, why not just try to increase the birthrate instead?"
Because those babies will grow up and get uppity! Our immigrants may be entitled, sexually deviant and prone to harrassment of anything remotely female, randomly violent, surly, clannish, dishonest, have a low opinion to anyone that isn't a brown male; but they are perfect for the elites.
At a political district level they forming voting blocs so the same politicians can be elected year after year regardless of performance. Socially, they can disrupt and destroy the fabric of bonds and relationships between people of different economic stratus. Nationally, a new Asian/Arab/Black/South American (the Soviet Man of the Future?!? .... hahah!) will populate this island continent.
Ultimately in Australia, there aren't many ideals, but one of them is a 'fair go'.That means anyone, regardless of skill level, should at least be able to support himself and his family at the bare mininum (by working, not welfare).
Steve, official commentators call Australia the 'lucky country' but I don't think that is right. Your description of Australia as the 'happy country' is accurate, and sad at the same time. Australian society is far from perfect, but it was a nice place.
Post a Comment