Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (18)
While adherence to prevailing notions of political correctness has generated strong pressure for acceptance of large scale immigration for perceived humanitarian reasons, consideration of outcomes has been accorded little attention. The current source for mass asylum seeking is coming almost entirely from the Muslim nations of North Africa and the Middle East. Without exception the governments of these nations are characterised by high levels of repression, corruption and incompetence. Economic stagnation is pervasive, relieved only by lavish non-productive spending where oil wealth is available.
Rarely do any of these governments change peacefully through an open fair election. Coups, revolutions or the death of a leader is the norm for any change in regime. Often this is then accompanied by a period of civil violence, commonly reaching extreme levels until some faction prevails, only to re-establish similar, or even worse, levels of repression, corruption and incompetence. That this pattern is so widespread, pervasive and persistent in these nations makes it unlikely to be only a matter of random mischance. It is difficult to avoid considering that it must arise from some common, underlying propensities which manifest as ongoing high levels of intolerance, repression, corruption, intractable factionalism, extreme violence and fanatical commitment to differing fundamentalist religious interpretations.
High levels of such immigrants present a significant problem in bringing with them these propensities. This risk must then be compounded if the same tendencies also serve to strongly inhibit assimilation into the host culture and increase still further if poor assimilation leads to concentration in ghettos where the social malaise which drove the emigration continues to be propagated. Meanwhile the dysfunction in the source nations continues apace with no sign of improvement and any facilitation of immigration elsewhere is likely to only encourage an even greater wave of refugees.
Continuation of cultural practices which clearly violate the laws of the host country are already common, and demands for legal recognition of sharia law are beginning to be made. In a democratic system, where a voting bloc of 10% of an electorate can determine the outcome of elections, it is only a matter of time before demands for such recognition start to be granted on some level and then, inevitably, expanded. The question of whether accepting large numbers of such refugees alleviates human suffering or spreads it deserves careful consideration.
Although our own governments like to pay lip service to evidence-based policy, they tend to do little to develop or assess such evidence. In Australia we already have a well-established and mostly capable government body which could readily produce the evidence needed in this regard. This is the Australian Bureau of Statistics, and all government need do is request it be done.
Existing immigration statistics are largely restricted to overall numbers for different regions and a limited amount of data on the composition of immigrant families. For a genuine evidence-based policy on immigration and refugees much more information about the detailed demographics of asylum seekers and other immigrants is essential. A much clearer picture is needed of who they are, where they come from, how and why they come, what they bring in the way of skills, where they settle, their employment, education, health and welfare requirements, crime statistics, connections with militant fundamentalism and terrorism, as well as the general nature of their assimilation or lack thereof.
It would not be difficult for parliament to establish a bipartisan committee to determine the type of information to request and to liaise with the ABS to develop it. Genuine, evidence-based policy could then be possible. Continuing to bumble around in regard to immigration and asylum with little knowledge of what we are actually doing or what the results are until they become obviously manifest and too late to avoid would be a travesty.
The UN Refugee Agency reports there are some 65 million displaced persons globally, of which 39% are in the Middle East and North Africa. Some 54% of the global total comes from just three countries — Somalia, Syria and Afghanistan. It is obvious that without a huge increase in numbers, acceptance of asylum seekers in developed countries can do little to alleviate the massive problem; moreover, it is not at all apparent that the asylum seekers are very pleased with their host countries or have any desire to assimilate with their hosts’ culture. On the contrary, there seems to be a growing hatred of their hosts by at least some of them, a loathing that is manifesting in acts of horrendous violence. Even if such extremism only comes from a very small minority of refugees, it cannot negate the fact they are drawn from a particular group and that more will arrive unless such individuals can be better identified and screened out.
Regardless of how one feels about this issue much better information on immigrant success is badly needed. Naively accepting large numbers of refugees from the most dysfunctional societies on the planet with scant assessment of the results being achieved would seem almost beyond belief if it were not fact. At best they must almost certainly add to an already problematic welfare burden. However, if many of these refugees also despise us, detest our culture, have no intention of assimilating and fervently wish to make their new home much more like the one from which they fled, we would seem to be creating a major problem for ourselves by bringing them in.
If the evidence were to indicate no significant difference in the success of immigrants from various sources, then we can comfortably cease any concern in this regard. However, in the likely event that significant differences are found, it must surely be sensible to give priority to those likely to be most successful in adapting to our society and leave those likely to be unhappy here to find asylum in other cultures more to their own liking.
In any event, whatever alleviation of suffering which might be achieved by accepting refugees can only be trivial in relation to the overall global magnitude of the problem. Meanwhile, demographics, oil industry economics and resource depletion are set to exacerbate the already abysmal problems inflicting the source nations. The only real hope for a solution is at the source and it is there that any effective effort must be focused.
For a host nation to naively infect itself with a metastasising societal malignancy through mindless adherence to ill-conceived notions of political correctness affords an excellent prospect for a Darwin Award on a national level. If ever there has been the need for the precautionary approach this must surely be it.
The people in Melbourne know all too well about crime gangs and anti-social behaviour, all started by sub-Saharan African ‘migrants’. There’s the cone of silence over all of this and the people going on suffering and watching the value of their real estate decline. The bien pensant have this attitude: “Don’t discuss race because that makes you a racist; we must work out what is wrong with AUSTRALIAN society that criminal gangs can run rampant. We want an immigration policy which is non-discriminatory and if you oppose that you are xenophobic and racist. Also, we have obligations to these refugees and we think it’s a good idea to take them – and they need to go to YOUR area”.
I’ve thinking wondering lately; how many Jews were engaged in anti-social violence and criminal behaviour when they came to this country as refugees before, during and after WW2. If somebody has the answer to this question – with numbers – I’d like to hear it.
An uncle (himself a post WWII reffo) did say that the Ukranian reffos he paid as day labourers when building a house where quick to produce a knife and he didn’t much working with them. I don’t however believe it could have been anything like our Apex gangs or it would have been all over the news.
I assume most of the post WWII reffos were like my father’s family, in that they were:
fingerprinted in the selection process so that you couldn’t then send a healthy look alike for the chest x-ray and medical,
had to accept that they could be sent to do manual labour in remote areas, and
before getting citizenship they had to advertise in the newspaper so people could object if they wanted to.
It seemed to work, nobody appeared to go back over the iron curtain to find a cousin to marry.
I have long thought and said that Australia should have only ONE culture – OURS – and that that culture should be as free market/laissez faire economically as is possible. We are a multi-racial country, and maybe we should/could be even more multi-racial. But that said, in a true democracy becoming more multi-racial is something that we all should be allowed to have some sort of meaningful say on, and not just have it imposed on us by the un-elected elites of the ABC, the media and academia.
If we can have a plebiscite on the issue of same sex ‘marriage’/marriage ‘equality’, which in reality is a minor issue when it comes to determining our future and our culture, then a plebiscite/referendum on levels of migration and on the types and sources of immigrants allowed to come here should be possible, and it would be far more important/meaningful because it would have a far bigger impact on the continuation and development of our culture. Even whether we take any ‘refugees’ at all should be up for debate. I say that even though I married the daughter of genuine refugees from post WW2 who were escaping from the ‘culture’ of communism.
Leftists, of course would object, because they have only ever viewed democracy as a means of legitimising their desire to be able to vote themselves access to the wealth created by other people, and to control people, not to give people any real say in matters like this. Leftists love ‘democracy’ only when it suits them. Democracy is viewed by a lot of leftists in the same way as that of Erdogan of Turkey views it, – Democracy is like a bus, when you arrive at your destination, you step off. Thanks to leftist pressure via the media we have already ‘stepped off the bus’ on a great many issues, but I would like to think that our culture is one area where we should be allowed to keep riding the ‘democratic bus’.
I agree almost entirely with your comment.
However – “We are a multi-racial country, and maybe we should/could be even more multi-racial.” – is at the heart of the problem as I see it.
Multi-cultural vs multi-ethnic (multi-racial).
They are clearly very different, but it suits various PC driven agendas to muddy the waters.
To seriously suggest that Australians generally are in any way racist means that you have never travelled extensively overseas – or even been overseas.
Australians have a culture – and a very successful culture that is Judeo Christian with admirable characteristics such as a “fair go” and tolerance with a very individualistic “mind your own business” approach.
Some immigrants (many ? / most ? ) want to bring their failed culture with them – a mixture of religious or political hatreds , endemic intolerance and a penchant for violence which was often required to ensure survival in their own country of birth.
Colour does not matter to the vast majority of Australians who spend most of the summer at the beach with the deliberate intent of darkening their currently pale skin.
Culture does matter because it reflects not colour but attitude.
Multi-cultural – no way.
Multi-ethnic/Mono-cultural – absolutely not a problem
p.s. I much prefer the term multi-ethnic in place of multi-racial – same result without the undertones.
“To seriously suggest” was poor wording.
It appears to point at the previous poster.
Not intended.
Apologies.
This article and the following one by David Martin Jones “The Illiberal Left and Political Islam” dovetail very nicely into one another. The ever increasing influx of Muslim “asylum seekers” into western nations, coupled with the prolific birthrate of Muslim immigrants, greatly assist and hasten the progress of the subjugation of the west by Islam by democratic means. Voices warning and protesting against the phenomenon are mercilessly slapped down by politically correct, stupid leaders, both of the left and the right, enthusiastically supported by legions of ignorant useful idiots. They will be first in line to be beheaded when their utopia comes about.
I couldn’t agree more with your last sentence.
The Danes did a study very late last century. They discovered that the initial refugees/ immigrants are very gratefu. The problem arises from the second generation as they don’t feel totally accepted on the host nation and when they return to their parents country, are not totally accepted there either. Therefore, I would say the Robles of immigration/ asylum is a 2 generational problem.
I feel the bureau should provide details about 2nd and 3rd generations.
The Danes did a study very late last century. They discovered that the initial refugees/ immigrants are very gratefu. The problem arises from the second generation as they don’t feel totally accepted on the host nation and when they return to their parents country, are not totally accepted there either. Therefore, I would say the Robles of immigration/ asylum is a 2 gener
ational problem.
I feel the bureau should provide details about 2nd and 3rd generations.
I hate predictive writng
Tomorrow will be another sunny day in Sydney. Oh, wait…
“Rice paddy to rice paddy in 3 generations”.
The theory of the proverb is that the first generation starts off in a rice paddy, meaning two people with an affinity for one another come together and create a financial fortune. They usually do it without making significant changes to their values, customs or lifestyle. The second generation moves to the city, puts on beautiful clothes, joins the opera board, runs big organizations, and the fortune plateaus. The third generation, with no experience of work, consumes the financial fortune, and the fourth generation goes back in the rice paddy. This is the classic formulation of the shirtsleeves proverb, which is as true today as it has been throughout evolved human history.
p.s Source unknown.
There is a ‘black lives matter’ campaign in the US because of cultural disharmony between the 10% blacks and the 90% non blacks. That particular disharmony between visibly and culturally different people would be non extant if the country had developed as an all black or an all non black entity. Why in Australia are we trying to visibly look like the US particularly in our deep south, around Melbourne?
When former PM Tony Abbott and other Party leaders were competitively displaying their compassion with the number of refugees they could expedite here only Andrew Bolt was saying that the limited funds would help more people if given to them in secured border camps. Such refugees are well placed to return home such as did the Holy Family when they returned home from Egypt when it was safe to do so.
Really, not much will happen. This is the mindset in Europe now and you can see from the comments that the bien pensant don’t like their dreams trampled on!! They are extraordinarily creative when it comes to explaining away unpleasantness and violence in Europe:
http://slippedisc.com/2016/08/how-our-german-string-quartet-is-working-with-refugees/
> ” … not much will happen”
Well, the situation will just become more and more tense. The MSM and its’ academic enablers are determined that this be so; a majority of the population will avoid conflict if it can as it just wants to build and enjoy life.
There are quite a number of essays on these lines at the moment. All of them have large grains of truth to them but contain no suggested resolutions. (Sorry, Walter, but no Aus Govt has the slightest interest in compiling and then releasing the stats you list for public consumption.)
I am of the view that there is no possible resolution in our time. I’m well aware that other commenters here disagree and take this view to task – but in none of these attempts at rebuttal is there yet one hint of practical resolution. One is forced to the simple conclusion that yelling at this is a projection of impotent anger … as for me, I am looking after me and mine as best I can. Sad, perhaps, but sensible.
The great weakness of Islam is its factionalism.
We will know our problem has arrived when the bombings of mosques and markets begin occurring in our Muslim enclaves.
Our immigration needs to identify the sect to which each Muslim family adheres.
Exclusions should be of any family that has any links to Sunni Wahabism and Salafism.
I’d like statistics of the various sects of Muslims in Australia, in much the same way Christian demonisation a are classified, eg Catholic, C of E etc.
That would give us a great idea of what we and our descendants are going to have to deal with.
Denomination damn I too hate predictive text.
I well remember the hoops that Caucasian migrants from western countries had to go through to get here in the 60’s.70’s and 80’s. They had to have an accumulation of points to be able to apply to come here and the nitpicking by the Immigration Dept. had to be seen to be believed.Now it seems that you only have to be a victim of your own country’s screwed up mentality and your on a free run.
When I see the number of single men from countries in the grip of war, who flee to the west rather than fight for their freedom. I get so angry because, in many cases, young men from western countries are putting their lives on the line to do their fighting for them.And in return,the host nation gets swamped with people totally unsuited to assimilation into the host country.There should be a total ban on any intake from these countries until we have sorted out the problems we have with those we have been stuck with through government stupidity.
My mother’s parents came from the middle east close to a hundred years ago. They were Christians.While not being able to speak English at first, they shared a common bond with the community they lived in. All their children were born here and had the work ethic of their fellow Christians. They, their children and grandchildren flourished. They were and are respected for their contribution to the nation. Most of the post WW2 immigrants were of the same ideology. They were grateful for a safe haven where they could raise their families and prosper through hard work and commitment. They were able to draw on the things they had in common with their communities and make their own mark on the evolving Australian culture. All without assistance fro the government.The same cannot be said for those we accept into our country today.