There have been some interesting further developments. The Sri Lankan High Commissioner to Australia has noted that the spokesmen for the Tamils speak English with a distinct American accent and have therefore probably resided recently in a Western country. He therefore doubts that there would be any problem with them returning to Sri Lanka.
One of the spokesmen, Alex, explained his accent by stating that he "worked at an American call centre in Chennai for three years where he was taught to speak with an American accent."
Where is Chennai? It is the city formerly known as Madras and is the capital city of Tamil Nadu in India!
The picture to the left shows a shopping mall in Chennai. The photo below it shows one of the numerous software parks in the city.
The point is that Chennai is not an economic basket case, but has a rapidly modernising economy. Tamils like Alex have already been able to move there and work there and so there is no obvious reason why they shouldn't have patiently taken advantage of the growing economy in Chennai - rather than taking a gamble on paying smugglers to get to Australia instead.Two journalists
In my previous post I also asked why mainstream journalists hadn't asked about the Tamil Nadu option. Well, two of them now have. Andrew Bolt of the Melbourne Herald Sun wrote:
Let’s presume (on little proof) that these educated and monied Tamils could not stay in Sri Lanka, and let’s ask where they could go instead. Well, just across a narrow strait from their island is the Tamil Nadu state of India, which is safe.
And Greg Sheridan of The Australian observed that:
Just being a Tamil does not make you a refugee. Moreover, if you are fleeing persecution as a Tamil in Sri Lanka, why wouldn't you go and live in Tamil Nadu, the giant Tamil state of India, just next door to Sri Lanka? India does not persecute people for being Tamils.
Although I give credit to Sheridan for writing openly about the issue, his piece does illustrate some of the problems with the political situation in Australia. Sheridan is amongst the most adventurous in venturing his opinions - but his views are still a long way from anything that might be considered conservative or traditionalist.
His basic argument is that continuing mass immigration is a great thing, but that the public will only accept it if the government maintains control over the process. Therefore, he thinks the Tamils should be made to go through normal channels of immigration rather than jumping the queue.
Why would he support mass immigration? Sheridan believes that most of the boat people arriving in Australia are not genuine refugees but illegal immigrants. However, he thinks the actions of the illegal immigrants are moral, even if politically unacceptable:
I make no moral criticism of the illegal immigrants. If I were living in Sri Lanka or Afghanistan and I could pay a people-smuggler $15,000 to get me to Australia, to enjoy everything from law and order and good weather to Medicare, Centrelink and good schools, I would make that effort.
But that understandable motivation does not make a person a refugee. I think Sri Lankans generally make excellent migrants to Australia. I have always favoured a larger immigration program and a larger refugee intake, but I want Australia to choose who it takes and to do so in an orderly way.
It doesn't occur to Greg Sheridan that someone might love their country enough to stay and work to improve the living conditions at home rather than simply packing their family up to move elsewhere.
Sheridan views nations as places you park yourself to enjoy the conditions of life. If the conditions of life seem better elsewhere, then, as an individual "economic man", you rationally choose to park yourself there instead.
There's no sense that nations are distinct entities with unique traditions to which we are more closely or more distantly connected. Little wonder, then, that Sheridan's understanding of the allegiance we owe to particular nations is so flimsy - or that he thinks it moral and reasonable for people to transport themselves to foreign cultures if, say, the welfare benefits or schools are better.
Our allegiance to our homeland shouldn't depend narrowly on the material conditions of life. What is more important is the love of our own enduring tradition, a sense of shared sacrifices through history and an appreciation of our own distinct culture.
And if the schools aren't as good as elsewhere? You work to improve them as part of a commitment to your own nation.
According to Sheila Newman, Greg Sheridan is just another propagandist for the Growth Lobby. I am inclined to agree.
ReplyDeleteShe writes on her blog that "Greg Sheridan is a rich source for a researcher into population growth lobby tactics and media propaganda."
Readers of Mark's OzCon may find
her blog to be of interest.
The subject of her article is "Australians were never asked and never gave permission for today's mass immigration".
I'm inclined to agree with that. I sometimes get propganda in the mail from my local state MP. But I have never heard so much as a peep from my federal MP during the last decade - even during election time. He makes absolutely no effort to canvas the views of voters in his electorate let alone try argue for them in parliament. He is just a cog in the ALP machine, his website just a load of politally-correct platitudes and assorted self-promotional rubbish.
In fact I am so disgusted with the lack of democracy in Australia that during the last general election I simply went to the polling station, got my name ticked off the list and then quietly departed after putting a clean unmarked ballot paper into the box.
The Tamils would agree with you on the importance of tradition and culture. So they recreate their traditional culture here in Australia and are insular within their community. Then they have the nerve to feel hard done by, "everyone hates us Tamils" and expect and demand action from a government and society they hardly feel any obligation and allegiance to.
ReplyDeleteI can't speak for Andrew Bolt. But it's clear that Greg Sheridan has a specific philosophical problem in his thinking (as well as the ones inherent in working for Red Rupert Murdoch).
ReplyDeleteFor at least 20 years Sheridan has been a devotee of American neocons. Which means in practice that he buys into the whole concept of America (and every other country including Australia) as a "proposition nation" - as something that you invent through an act of will, by making an existing place more "democratic" and "liberal", so that the rednecks who happen to live there already by "an accident of birth" will either shut up or move somewhere else.
The idea of a person having an instinctive preference for his own habitat - wishing to live in a nation purely and simply because that is where he and his ancestors were born and grew up - seems anathema to Sheridan.
The first step towards limiting immigration would be to rein in the hunger of corporations for cheap labour. Businesses love immigrants as they are more likely to work at dirt cheap rates.
ReplyDeleteI make no moral criticism of the illegal immigrants. If I were living in Sri Lanka or Afghanistan and I could pay a people-smuggler $15,000 to get me to Australia, to enjoy everything from law and order and good weather to Medicare, Centrelink and good schools, I would make that effort.
ReplyDeleteMorally, one should criticize the Tamils and other refugees for running away from their homelands instead of staying to improve them.
Even if one does not blame refugees and other migrants for wanting to leave, one can and should blame the recipient countries for taking them in.
"The Tamils would agree with you on the importance of tradition and culture. So they recreate their traditional culture here in Australia and are insular within their community."
ReplyDeleteOne of the most egregious aspects of multiculturalism is the way in which it accords different rights and privileges to different groups living in Australia today.
Immigrant communities, for instance, are encouraged to promote their own ethnic identities and their own group interests. Ethnic minority organisations - cultural centres, business networks and political lobbies - are accepted and treated with respect by politicians. The justifying story told to the majority is that we all benefit from cultural diversity. At the same time, majority ethnocentricism is held to be dangerous and regularly criticised in the media, education system and by the multicultural lobby. Any attempt by members of the Anglo-Celtic Australian majority to advance their own group interests is immediately condemned. Australians of Anglo-Celtic descent are expected to forgo group loyalties and are even punished for showing them in politics and business. How can something be so precious and notable for one section of society but worthless and disreputable for another?
This flagrant double standard is most noticable in immigration matters. Apparently, it is acceptable, even noble, for immigrant communities to lobby for the importation of more of their own kind. Yet, it is "racist" for the Anglo-Celtic majority to prefer British or European immigrants over those from other backgrounds. Immigrant communities openly brag about their growing demographic strength, while Australians of Anglo-Celtic descent are called racists merely for mentioning the fact that current immigration policy is dramatically reducing their percentage of the population.
The Tamils would agree with you on the importance of tradition and culture. So they recreate their traditional culture here in Australia and are insular within their community.
ReplyDeleteThey want the best of both worlds.
As the late Sam Francis put it:
"What they [non-Western immigrants] expect is that Westerners and the civilization they created should provide them with whatever they please—the wealth, security, freedom, education and comfort that is the creation of the white West—but that they do nothing whatsoever to sustain the civilization."
I'm justing watching how Nick Griffin went on the BBC to see what all the fuss was about.
ReplyDeleteAt the recent ALP national conference in Sydney where RJ Hawke was being made a life member...
ReplyDelete"an emotional ...Mr Hawke said the migration policies of his government had done more than anything else to define modern Australia". Source
(Thunderous applause)
This is code for Mr Hawke and his fellow liberals in the ALP are proud that he unleashed a tsunami of non-european immigration to Australia - without the approval or consent of the Australian people.
"...with the common cement of ACTU support, to advance the national interest ahead of where they believed the electorate to be".
In other words he knew full well the public was against it but justified it on moral grounds as being in the 'public interest'.
It's fair enough in some circumstances when leaders are called upon to make quick, tough decisions that, although unpopular, are obviously in the long term national interest.
But the question of whether the decades-long program of mass immigration - which has doubled in size in the past 10 years - should continue roaring along ad infinitum, has still never, ever been properly put to the electorate.
20 years on from the Hawke era most people still dare to dream that the public might one day have a say in the future direction of their own nation. But once again the elites keep the issue of mass-immigration completely off the national agenda under a bi-partisan agreement (cemented by the ACTU).
But geez, isn't our Kev tough on those asylum seekers?
Mark Richardson wrote:
ReplyDelete"What is more important is the love of our own enduring tradition, a sense of shared sacrifices through history and an appreciation of our own distinct culture."
At first I thought this was mainly directed at the Tamils. Then I realized this is of course a sensible interior view for the people of any nation or region.
However, we cannot project this ethic onto anyone else [I'm not saying Mr Richardson is suggesting this].
Our defense against irrational immigration policy is also an internal, non-transferable process for our own benefit. If persons from other countries seek opportunity in the West en masse (which they do) then we must meet them with a robust filtering system.
We can do nothing about whether they abide the "pull" of their own culture in the first place. The prosperity of Madras, Bangkok, etc., is a good thing, but the burden to shape this issue will be on the shoulders of Western countries for many years to come.
After listening to the strident and unapologetic rhetoric of the bnp I'm inclined to think that only that kind of loud approach really cuts through. Of course the situation is much more pronounced in the UK.
ReplyDelete"The first step towards limiting immigration would be to rein in the hunger of corporations for cheap labour. Businesses love immigrants as they are more likely to work at dirt cheap rates."
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure I agree with your point Bhanu.
During parliament there was debate this week about Ken Henry's treasury report which stated the pop would grow to 35 mill in 40 years, 7 mill plus major cities etc. Criticism was directed at Labour because these numbers were higher than expected. That there was not sufficient planning and infrastructure in place to accommodate those numbers.
The issue around immigration numbers of that size is not about planning. Plans can be updated services can be introduced. The issue, (and why it was a hot issue) is that everyone knows that once numbers reach that extent not only will our cities become monstrous and our way of life substantially altered, but that white people will become a minority in their own country. That could not currently be said in parliament. You can't get up as a mainstream politician and say white people will be marginalised to such and extent and our nation colossally changed. What you can say on the other hand is that there was not sufficient planning in place, unexpected numbers etc.
You can't say this because to do so would tag you as a Nazi, which is a terrifying prospect. Surprisingly the only people who are openly standing up and saying these kind of statements in the political realm, for instance the BNP, actually are or were Nazis. Nick Griffin, BNP head, was a holocaust denier for most of his life. If you actually are a Nazi the tag of Nazi is obviously not so scary and so these people are able to make their political points.
Funnily enough the BNP platform is not a Nazi platform. Its what would have been considered the absolute political mainstream in the 40's and 50's. The White Australia policy was introduced by the Labour party and the BNP plays well in traditionally UK Labor districts (the midlands for instance).
My opinion is that the first step so to speak on this issue should be to regain the public sphere to actually talk about immigration and race.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/1025/p90s01-woap.html
ReplyDeleteEU-style Asian trading bloc: Australia negotiates for its own political and cultural suicide -- and wants to drag the US into it as well.
"The Tamils would agree with you on the importance of tradition and culture. So they recreate their traditional culture here in Australia and are insular within their community."
This is what ALL non-Western immigrants do.
Mark,
ReplyDeleteKen Henry's Brisbane speech really deserves its own post.
"The Shape of Things to Come: Long Run Forces Affecting the Australian Economy in Coming Decades" -- yes, mass immigration is a "force that affects Australia". It is not something you can choose to accept or not accept, it is as impersonal and inexorable as gravity!
Bhanu wrote, "The first step towards limiting immigration would be to rein in the hunger of corporations for cheap labour. Businesses love immigrants as they are more likely to work at dirt cheap rates."
ReplyDeleteHmm, I'm not sure if this is the first step, but it surely is an important one. Business interests are undermining the interests of every traditional people throughout the world, from India to Australia to the heartland of America. It's obvious, so why not call them out on it as you say?
Because, as Jesse points out, the most people today think that defending the existence of White ethnic groups is Nazi. Therefore, the very first step is to make clear again the now obfuscated difference between racial/ethnic self-preservation and racial/ethnic aggression.
Then, the evil of the corporate and government globalists will be pretty obvious.
By the way, may I ask if you are writing from India? Is mass immigration a problem there? Why, without the baggage from World War II, would people there accept their own dispossession and dissolution? Is there some multiculti/globalist argument other than the Nazi/racist trope?
Interesting related article:
ReplyDeleteLabour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser
Jesse wrote,
ReplyDeleteThe White Australia policy was introduced by the Labour party and the BNP plays well in traditionally UK Labor districts (the midlands for instance).
Strange, isn't it that Labour introduced a White Australia policy? It reminds me of the 1920's era South African Communist rallying cry, White Workers of the World Unite!
I wonder, though, if there might be some method to this madness. It's true that today a White Australia policy would be reactionary and not very leftist/Labour-like.
But consider that if,
1.) Race is a broader category than ethnicity
and
2.) Prior to the 1920's, nations organized themselves along ethnic rather than racial lines
then
3.) Racializing politics was a step toward globalization in the '20s.
Seen this way, Labour's White Australia policy (Australia not just for Anglo-Celts but for all Whites, etc., etc.) and SA's White Workers of the World Unite is perfectly leftist.
Jesse writes,
My opinion is that the first step so to speak on this issue should be to regain the public sphere to actually talk about immigration and race.
Yep, agreed. To downshift the government from a global one to a local one, we've got to downshift its reach. In other words, we've got to make our government and our communities much less "inclusive," i.e. global, and retrace the steps of our Leftist adversaries through at least the last 150 years or so.
Talking about race and immigration seems like a good place to start (so long as we don't get stuck there).
The White Australia Policy was originally brought in (during 1901) by a non-Labor government, not by a Labor one (although of course the Labor Party supported such a policy).
ReplyDeleteJames, thanks for the correction. Do you know which party introduced it?
ReplyDeleteIf Labor merely supported the policy, then the evidence for my argument is reduced. There are many reasons a party may support a policy, and not all of them have to do with basic ideology. Sometimes, it's just about vote-getting.
Seen this way, Labour's White Australia policy (Australia not just for Anglo-Celts but for all Whites, etc., etc.) and SA's White Workers of the World Unite is perfectly leftist.
ReplyDeleteThat was certainly not the intention of those who implemented the "White Australia" policy. They wanted to keep Australia, first and foremost, a British society.
As Labor Prime Minister John Curtin proclaimed: "We are a British community in the South Seas, and we regard ourselves as the trustees for the British way of life in a part of the world where it is of the utmost significance to the British Commonwealth and to the British nation and to the British Empire - call it by any name that you will - that there should be in the Antipodes a people and a territory corresponding in purpose and in outlook and in race to the [British] Motherland itself."
Non-British European immigration was only encouraged from the 1950s onwards when it became apparent that Australia would not be able to source enough immigrants from the British Isles to meet its targets. And even then, the plan was to bring out 10 British immigrants for every non-British immigrant.
Bartholomew has written:
ReplyDelete"James, thanks for the correction. Do you know which party introduced it?
If Labor merely supported the policy, then the evidence for my argument is reduced. There are many reasons a party may support a policy, and not all of them have to do with basic ideology. Sometimes, it's just about vote-getting."
The White Australia Policy was brought in during the 1901-03 Prime Ministry of Sir Edmund Barton, who was from the Protectionist Party (which then ran a minority government with Labor's parliamentary support). I see no reason to think that Labor was simply angling for votes on the matter. Labor had wanted a White Australia from the year dot, and was very open about saying so.
Keith Windschuttle, whatever his latter-day faults as a neocon, is a useful guide to the policy's history in his book The White Australia Policy.
Keith Windschuttle, whatever his latter-day faults as a neocon, is a useful guide to the policy's history in his book The White Australia Policy.
ReplyDeleteAccording to Windschuttle, the "White Australia" policy was not really about preserving the ethnically European character of Australian society, but merely an attempt to keep out cheap labor.
As Andrew Fraser points out in his review of Windschuttle's The White Australia Policy:
Mr. Windschuttle argues that the policy was really a campaign to prevent importation of cheap coolie labor from Asia, and that it grew out of earlier movements to end slavery and the transportation of convicts to Australia. Therefore, opposition to Asian immigration was not grounded in fears of “racial contamination.” Instead, politicians wanted to protect the standard of living of Australian workers and prevent the emergence of “a racially-based political underclass” that would undermine Australia’s egalitarian democracy.
This argument strains credulity. Australians were determined to create a new Britannia. For most, it was self-evident that antipodean Britons, too, were white Europeans, bound by what Alfred Deakin described as the “crimson ties” of kinship to the mother country. Mr. Windschuttle would have us believe that they were proto-Boasian anthropologists, confident that, once liberated from their historically-conditioned culture of servility, Chinese and Indian laborers would be indistinguishable from white Australians of British stock.
...
Unfortunately, Mr. Windschuttle’s rehabilitation of the White Australia Policy is premised on a familiar, if pernicious, tenet of neo-conservatism: Like those who claim that the United States is a “creedal” or “concept” nation, Mr. Windschuttle maintains that the operating premise of Australian society is the proposition that all people are equal in principle and in potential. Accordingly, Australia’s national identity is “based on a civic patriotism,” thereby fostering “loyalty to Australia’s liberal democratic political institutions rather than to race or ethnicity.”
I think Readers will find this video of John Howard and Yasmin Ali Brown interesting.
ReplyDeleteHoward takes the credit that most commonly spoken foreign language in Australia became Cantonese/Mandarin under his watch and yet he is still accused of racism.
James and RD:
ReplyDeleteThanks for the information.
Though you (and I!) disagree with Mr.Windschuttle's intentions, his analysis of Labor motives certainly seems plausible. After all, why should a socialist labor party care a whit about race, ethnicity, sex, culture, religion, etc. According to Marxist ideology, are these not merely distractions employed by the Establishment to keep the international proletariat in its chains, blah blah blah?
That is a fascinating quote from PM John Curtin, and it is certainly not something that a Labor politician, or any elite politician, would dare say today. But I wonder if he was sincere or just aping the sentiments of other men for a few more votes?
It's all speculation; I don't really know. I just have a tough time understanding how racialism no matter how reasonable could have jibed with Labor's principles.
Does anyone have another theory?
Howard's duplicity on immigration has been discussed on this blog before.
ReplyDeleteDespite successfully painting himself as an arch cultural warrior and a heroic defender of traditional Anglo-Celtic Australia, John "One Australia" Howard actually did more to undermine traditional Australia than any of his predecessors. Under his watch, immigration from traditional European sources fell below 50 per cent of the total intake for the first time in Australia's history.
Howard also presided over the seldom discussed, but highly significant changes to our immigration laws which essentially made a degree from an Australian university a ticket to permanent residency - a decision which will have profound ramifications in the years to come. As Dr. Peter Wilkinson explains in his eye-opening book The Howard Legacy, "In selecting skilled immigrants, those who have done a degree in Australia receive bonus points in the criteria for acceptance for residency. In effect the policy selects those Asians who have higher cognitive ability, predominantly ethnic Chinese. In the ‘knowledge economy’ of today a premium is paid for qualifications and cognitive ability. They and their children (who will inherit their higher intelligence) will fill the professional and managerial ranks in Australia. They will dominate the cognitive class and hence have disproportionate influence in the country. This has important ramifications for both internal and external policies as ethnic demographic change continues."
Wilkinson dedicates a chapter to Howard's desperate and ultimately futile attempts to woo the Chinese vote. Essentially, the stupid old fool woke up one day and discovered that one-fifth of his electorate was now Chinese, largely thanks to his own government's immigration policies.
Wilkinson quotes the following extract from a letter that was sent out from Howard's office to all families in Bennelong with Chinese-sounding surnames:
"I am deeply honoured and priviledged to represent an electorate which is diverse and vibrant. The Chinese community has a well-deserved reputation for strong family values and enterprise which is widely admired.
My Government continues to build on our nation's strengths through immigration policies which balance our need for skills and family reunion considerations, and encourage overseas students in Australia completing their tertiary education to apply for permanent residency."
The spectacle of the mighty John Winston Howard, once a critic of multiculturalism and large-scale Asian immigration, obsequiously pandering to the "Chinese community" would have been almost humorous if it weren't for the fact that the national interest was at stake.
As Wilkinson notes, our national immigration policy was essentially being held hostage to the re-election concerns of the prime minister.
Of course, the delicious irony is that the Howard Government's preferential treatment of Chinese immigrants only accelerated the buildup of Chinese in Bennelong, thereby ensuring the permanent shift of this once safe Liberal seat to the ALP.
Whether they realise it or not, these impertinent Sri Lankans have essentially shot themselves in the foot. By flatly refusing to lodge an asylum claim in Indonesia, they have exposed themselves as opportunistic asylum shoppers rather than legitimate asylum seekers in need of refuge. Real asylum seekers don't get to pick and choose which country they feel like moving to. And Australia isn't obliged to accept people who turn their noses up at other perfectly safe countries like Indonesia simply because the social welfare benefits and living standards aren't up to the level they demand.
ReplyDeleteI think the white Australia policy was a simple recognition of the value of white or Anglo Saxon/Celtic British culture. This is perfectly consistent with working class society which the labour party represented. Arch left politics may be internationalist but practical left politics can be quite nationalistic.
ReplyDelete"Yep, agreed. To downshift the government from a global one to a local one, we've got to downshift its reach. In other words, we've got to make our government and our communities much less "inclusive," i.e. global"
Its interesting isn't it. Other societies are not embarrassed about defending their traditional societies or ways of life because theirs are not based on the assumption that their way of life is internationalist or the natural order available for anyone as the west does. Because our societies are based more on values than ethnic make ups (in some senses) its much harder to argue along ethnic lines.
I do think it was perfectly acceptable to argue along the lines of values when your society was predominantly, lets say monocultural, but if its not ...
Because of this I'm interested as to what people think of the BNP? Is this kind of ethnic politics acceptable?
Thanks guys. I'm busy with work at the moment so I may not be able to post very often. Thanks muchly.
"This is what ALL non-Western immigrants do."
ReplyDeleteI agree that most immigrant communities are inward looking. However, the presumption of these pricks seems particularily galling.
It appears "The Camp of the Saints" is becoming a reality for Australia.
ReplyDeleteHere's a conversation I overheard recently
ReplyDeletePerson 1: "There are so many Lebanese in Liverpool" *Wistful sigh*
Person 2: *Laughter* "I could have told you that man, you should go somewhere else".
Is that what we should do? All do our own thing, the white people go to the white area, other people to their area etc. Its essentially a liberal strategy. Everybody mind their own business.
One is reminded of another reason why its difficult to talk about immigration. It's "divisive". As in its upsetting to immigrants or people from diverse backgrounds. So in order not to upset people we don't talk about it and the numbers keep increasing which makes it again harder to talk about. Or we make a subtle invisible pact with the immigrants, if you promise not to cause trouble we'll let you (whichever group) increase numbers.
That's all well and good. Nobody is offended, we all do our own thing. I guess though it works on the assumption that we're not affected by what goes on around us. That we as individuals can completely (or largely) insulate ourselves and that immigration doesn't really change anything.
Lets look at things from another perspective. You see white people getting off at a train station in the city. They will be surrounded by immigrant faces. The white people (especially the young) will stride along as if they own the place, almost completely ignoring the immigrants. In their minds eye they're real Australians and the immigrants are just sort of workers or people who are here and of not great significance. They're not cool or interesting like white people, just doing boring jobs and working hard etc. Consequently attention isn't paid to them.
Is this accurate? Are the white people the Australians whilst the other people are just sort or workers or residents? Working for us and society and increasing our standard of living but not really part of us?
Am I missing something? These people are not second class citizens. They have full citizenship rights thank you very much and last time I checked we were a democracy. To ignore, patronize, fob off or idealise immigrants is to completely miss the fact that they don't work for us nor will they necessarily be endlessly grateful for the opportunity of being here. (As was pointed out just ask John Howard). In this country they are our equals, for good or bad and as their numbers increase so will their influence and demand for recognition and power in the public sphere.
How in the future then, when Australia is no longer a majority white nation can we continue to see ourselves as the land of Crocodile Dundee and Steve Irwin? What are we then, the land of what? The land of platitudes and nonsense?
Its time to let the melting pot boil and stop this tide.
One is reminded of another reason why its difficult to talk about immigration. It's "divisive". As in its upsetting to immigrants or people from diverse backgrounds. So in order not to upset people we don't talk about it and the numbers keep increasing which makes it again harder to talk about.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, as soon as a country has admitted a significant number of diverse immigrants, the host population loses the ability to freely debate whether it wants immigration to continue, because to say anything critical about such immigration is to "bash immigrants." In pandering to the sensitivities of the newly-arrived, the host population essentially surrenders control over immigration - and the future of its nation along with it.
Nobody is offended, we all do our own thing. I guess though it works on the assumption that we're not affected by what goes on around us.
And in the process, Australia ceases to be a nation in the traditional sense, becoming merely a random collection of unrelated people in proximity.
How in the future then, when Australia is no longer a majority white nation can we continue to see ourselves as the land of Crocodile Dundee and Steve Irwin?
ReplyDeleteThat's the big question, isn't it?
What happens when the people who have historically defined the Australian nation are rendered a minority? What kind of nation will Australia be?
We have embarked on a course which will inevitably result in the total and irreversible transformation of the very face and character of our nation, without ever having had a serious public debate on whether or not we as a nation and people want to be so radically transformed.
"... without ever having had a serious public debate on whether or not we as a nation and people want to be so radically transformed."
ReplyDelete*Shakes head*
It is right that this issue is discussed through the spectrum of liberalism. Under liberalism it’s very hard to mount arguments unless you yourself are personally put out (and so everybody lines up to be a victim and thereby have a public voice).
So the argument is made that changing the nation doesn't put us out as individuals. Change is inevitable, positives balance out the negatives etc.
Bartholomew wrote:
ReplyDelete"the very first step is to make clear again the now obfuscated difference between racial/ethnic self-preservation and racial/ethnic aggression."
Its interesting the French don't have any problem vocally defending their culture. (Not that I like their style).
"without ever having had a serious public debate"
ReplyDeleteIts hard to imagine how such a public debate would take place. The prospect would make me shudder, the issue touches on so many sacred cows.