Frank wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2017 at 8:08pm:


Asian hordes which never arrived and never will arrive on our shores, Soren.

Quote:


Oh, dear, your bigotry and yes, Racism and Xenophobia is showing again, Soren.  Tsk, tsk, I have no idea why you believe your views are typical of Australians.    85% believe that Multiculturalism is good for Australia.   Time you realised how much of a minority you represent.   

Lionel Edriess wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2017 at 10:32pm:


Wrong thread, Lionel.  You need to start one on either Sustainable population or Immigration levels, not on Multiculturalism.   Multiculturalism has nothing to do with either of those subjects.   

Of course, having more people, say through migration, makes the economy bigger but that doesn’t mean that living standards, as measured by gross domestic product per head, for example, are enhanced by bigger migrant intakes.

And what the best quality studies show is that the economic benefits of immigration are zero or slightly positive, with most of the gains being captured by the migrants themselves.

Employers and incumbent workers with complementary skills gain, but incumbent workers who have similar profiles to new migrants miss out in terms of employment prospects and wages.

Then there is the myth about immigration being useful in the context of an ageing society. The Productivity Commission has made the point at least three times that the impact of immigration on the demographic profile of Australia is minimal. After all, migrants themselves age.

What does surprise in the context of the immigration debate in Australia is the now active role being played by the Reserve Bank. After all, the Reserve Bank really does only one thing and that is to set the cash rate on a monthly basis, although it has January off (how last century). One wonders what the more than 1300 bank staff members do all day.

The governor and now an assistant governor of the bank have become active players in promoting high rates of immigration.

While accepting that high population growth — note that immigration accounts for more than half of our population growth — is contributing to high house prices, newly appointed governor Philip Lowe recently expressed the view that “our immigration program I see as a source of national strength. To give that advantage up just so that we can take some pressure off housing prices, I find kind of problematic.”

This really is an extraordinary thing to say. With his high salary, he will be able to help his children into the housing market. But to dismiss the pressure of high and rising house prices on large numbers of people is surely an inappropriate remark by a senior official. To be clear: “ ... a source of national strength” is a non-specific, non-analytical and lazy rationale for our immigration program.

But not to be outdone, we now have assistant governor Luci Ellis also proclaiming the virtues of our mass migration program.

On the latest figures, the net overseas migration was 182,000 for 2015-16 (the next figure does not come out until next March) and the permanent migrant program numbers are set at 190,000 for this financial year and the next three after that. More than 70 per cent of new migrants head to Melbourne or Sydney.

Ellis correctly remarks that Australia has one of the fastest growing populations in the developed world and this is mainly because of the large contribution of immigration.

She also correctly concedes that “just adding more people and growing the economy to keep pace wouldn’t boost our living standards”.

But she then asserts that because migrants are younger than the incumbent population and they are more skilled — in terms of post-school qualifications, at least — this should boost the economy.

If she had actually bothered to look into the research on immigration, she would have found that the post-school qualifications of immigrants to Australia are much less likely to be translated into well-paid jobs compared with Australian-born graduates.

Using 2013 data, Bob Birrell and Ernest Healy of Monash University found that “nearly 70 per cent of Australian graduates aged between 25 and 34 held managerial or professional jobs, whereas only 31 per cent of non-English speaking background immigrants with a degree held such jobs”. A total of 80 per cent of these immigrants came from non-English-speaking backgrounds.

Then there is the current favourite of the high immigration set, including Ellis: we need huge, congested cities to give our economy dynamism, promote innovation and boost productivity. We have seen ridiculously high population growth rates in Melbourne and Sydney, but sadly for Ellis the data on productivity does not support the thesis.

Multifactor productivity growth has gone nowhere and the capital deepening that has occurred (and that has driven labour productivity slightly higher) is overwhelmingly the result of investment in mining — not in the cities.

We have known for a long time that Treasury is part of the big immigration fan club, in part because economic measures are reported in absolute rather than per capita terms. We all know about the more than a quarter of a century of uninterrupted growth — the trouble is that’s not the case in per capita terms. We can now add the Reserve Bank to the fan club’s membership base.

It’s more important than ever that we have a frank discussion about the costs and benefits of immigration, as well as the specific features of our immigration program, as we hurtle towards a population of 40 million by 2060, if not before.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/judith-sloan/bigimmigration-f...

A giant Ponzi scheme.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2017 at 4:16pm:

64 % want immigrants to change their behaviour (ie assimilate). That's about two third - ie the locals.



p 67, dicko.

Frank wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2017 at 8:21pm:


I see you've started another thread,  Good to see you're reading what I'm advising, Soren.   

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 2^nd, 2017 at 11:00pm:


I beg to differ.

Our population now stands at 24,759,831 ( http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs%40.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/16475...), not far from the maximum level proposed by many studies. So, my question remains: When do we call a halt to immigration?

If we are to talk about multiculturalism, why are we offering places to immigrants that will not assimilate instead of say, people from Britain (who will assimilate) that have become displaced because of their own home-grown, failed immigration policies? Surely many of them now classify as 'refugees'. Germans, Swiss, Italians, etc.

What you espouse is the unrealistic Utopian ideal of a homogeneous society that embraces all. Well, we've all seen how that is working out in the models already existing in other countries, haven't we Brian.

I have yet to touch on the subject of 457 visa applicants seeking citizenship, including those who wish to include their family members once that citizenship is granted. Again, another question - however one that asks why overseas 'tradesmen' are replacing Aussie jobs even when disguised as shortfalls in recruitment.

Again on multiculturalism - I work with a number of 457 visa holders - and fortunately the majority of those are Filipino.  They often tell me of their previous experiences in the Middle East, where they have to disguise their religious leanings - most being Catholic (or at least Christian) because of their Spanish and American history.

When most Australians discuss 'multiculturalism', they hark back to the success stories associated with that utopian ideal. They remember those that have successfully integrated into our society while bringing their own unique offerings and allegiances to their adopted country. They WORKED.

Multiculturalism has led to the Somali gangs raging in our neighbourhoods. In order to preserve our own society, we need to blend our mix of multicultural ingredients.

There are not enough Canadians here, whether they be French, English or Inuit. Let's let in a few Canadian 'refugees' to swell our 'multiculturalism' - and send the Somalis to Chicago. Or offer the Israeli nation sanctuary in OUR deserts.

Live and let live is still alive in our society, just as mateship transcends colour and creed - but the bumper sticker is also true, 'Fit in or f=== off, we're full'.

Brian Ross wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2017 at 8:16pm:

Rolling your watery, unfocused eyes is not making a point, Bwian.

Lionel Edriess wrote on Dec 3^rd, 2017 at 7:47pm:


Differ all you like.  How about you take your differences to the thread on Immigration numbers and not here in the thread about Multiculturalism.   Multiculturalism is about what happens after we have migrants arrive...or not.  It will not disappear, how ever much the anti-Multiculturalists want it to.  The White Australia Policy is over, dead and well and truly buried and won't be resurrected when 85% of the Australian population believe Multiculturalism has been good for our society.   Tsk, tsk, Lionel, its not hard to be a little disciplined, you realise?