muso wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 9:02am:




Obviously? How so? I am curious to see how that fine scientific mind of your (facts, my boy, give me facts) deduced this 'obvious'. Could it be that because the tinted demographic is generally lower skilled and culturally more distant - therefore being against low skilled and culturally alien  immigration must be billed as 'racist' - and never mind that there are low skilled and uncultured whites (cf prison population).

I actually believe that your way of thinking is the racists one. You do not believe that certain tinted races are capable of obtaining high skills and a certain level cultural compatibility. You excuse low skills and cultural distance as if they were the immutable characacteristics of tinted people are bortn with and can never rise above.

muso wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 11:39am:



No, what I'm saying is that there seems to be a number of people who spend their time trying to find things that can be construed as racist.  Unfortunbately, these crackpots are often given the time of day when their demented musings really should be dismissed as time wasters.

A fine example is a curfew that was enacted for children in the nightclub district in Perth.  This was decried as racist because they were mostly aboriginal kids getting moved on.  This actually got airtime - It didn't occur to these geniuses that the policy was non-discriminatory - aboriginal kids were getting moved on more, because they were breaking the rules more.

Soren wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 11:32am:


I did ask you to correct me if I was wrong, but I don't think you actually corrected me. You just threw up a bit of a smoke screen.

So I'll ask again. was I wrong in my assumption? Would you in fact welcome people of a myriad of different colours, shapes and ethnicities into this country if they were equally skilled?

muso wrote on Aug 12^th, 2011 at 12:05pm:



I'm sure you understand that asking me to formulate every detail of an immigration policy on a post is a difficult, if not impossible task. 

What I must clarify, is that I have never said 100% of migrants must be white professionals.  But, our country was built on european (white) values, so it stands to reason that those from countries with similar origins would be the best fit.  That is not to say that all whites would be better than all non-whites, but it is a general rule.  That is where the citizenship test comes in, to determine the best way to 'spend' our immigration allowance.

A very important point that seems to be overlooked, is that there is no 'right' to live anywhere you please.  Final say should rest with the governing body of that country, which in turn should reflect the wishes of its constituents.  It is interesting then, that 'rich' neighbourhoods are disproprtioately 'pro-open migration' and poorer hoods are the opposite.  Shrill leftists like to proclaim that this is because of their 'superior education' all the while overlooking the fact that it is those poor people who experience it, and may have good reason to oppose it. 

I don't know the exact  breakdown of the immigration figures, but if we're taking 200,000 every year, it's not all going to be beneficial.  there's got to be a lot of dead weight in that figure.  That's 200,000 jobs to fill every year.  If they all need skills that we need to import, it begs the question of why aren't australians getting the training they need to contribute to their own country?

I want to see their... er... applications first.

You talk as if PRETENDING not to discern differences will make those differences actually non-existent.
In other words, like a fool....

UI have alreay said what I stand for:

Stop family reunion for non-citizens immediately.
Tighten up citizenship : minimum 10 year residency, with at least 8 years in gainful employment.
Only temporary protection visas for refugees.
No government money for ethnic causes of any kind - let the ethnic communities fund their various jamborees.
No multilingual government leaflets and websites - English only.

Also
It is right and proper to have the cancellation of citizenship mandated as additional punishment for certain crimes stemming from disloyalty to the country since citizenship is granted in exchang of a promise, the oath of allegiance.  Those who break their promises in a certain way should have their bonds of citizenship also broken.

Quote:



As I've already said, formulating an entire countries immigration policy on a post is an impossible task.  You know it, I know it, we all know what you're trying to do.

But cynicism aside, I'll sum it all up in a nutshell - the host culture must take precedence over imported cultures.  No affirmative action quotas.  Discrimination, or what one perceives to be so, should not carry punitive measures - if a business owner decides to discriminate against a superior foreigner and hire an inferior local instead, then that is punishment enough.

Come to think of it, my greatest criticism is not of immigration policy itself, but rather the the raft of 'anti-discrimination' measures which simply change the traget for discrimination rather than stopping the practice.  Putting the 'them' before the 'us' is illogical and harmful.