Monday, June 10, 2013

Sheridan on border protection failure

Greg Sheridan has written a lengthy article (registration required) about the boat people arriving in ever larger numbers in Australia. There are two interesting facts that he points to. The first is that the boats have become an organised Muslim channel of immigration to Australia:
This boatpeople phenomenon is essentially a determined Muslim immigration...A former senior officer of the Immigration Department spoke to me this week, on condition of anonymity, on the way the illegal immigration trade to Australia has become regularised, from Iran in particular. When he first got involved in this issue, Iranians and others would go to Malaysia, then on to Indonesia, and it would be months before they could find a people-smuggler. Now, he says, it is more often like a travel agent service, with everything arranged inside Iran.

Sheridan is concerned that this wave of Muslim immigration will bring to Australia ongoing security problems. So far there have been 40,000 boatpeople arrivals under Labour and this number will increase through family reunion. If you have 80,000 most will be law-abiding, but there will be some who will get involved in terrorism. The larger the overall number, the more difficult it becomes for the security organisations to control the situation.

The other interesting information that Sheridan provides are the unemployment numbers for the boat people. Most of those arriving are low-skilled and with poor English language skills. The rate of employment, even after five years, is abysmal:
The Immigration Department's figures, released last year, revealed that five years after arrival the rate of employment - not unemployment but employment - of Afghans was 9 per cent, while 94 per cent of Afghan households received Centrelink payments. From Iraq, 12 per cent were employed while 93 per cent of families received Centrelink payments. Overall, households that came under the humanitarian program had 85 per cent receiving Centrelink payments after five years. The family reunion cohort had 38%, and skilled migration 28 per cent.

Those are sobering figures. Even the skilled migration programme has 28% of families receiving Centrelink payments. But you can see how costly to the public purse the arrival of boat people really is: roughly 90% are unemployed even after five years in Australia. At the moment there are 3000 arriving every month or 36,000 per year. Of those 30,600 will require ongoing unemployment benefits. In just over three years there will be 100,000 requiring unemployment benefits, plus other family and rent assistance payments, plus the costs of education, health care and so on.

I should point out that even if the economic costs weren't so high traditionalists would still be opposed to mass, ongoing, diverse immigration. That's because we believe that the different ethnic and national traditions are important to preserve, and so we don't want them to be undermined by open borders.

14 comments:

  1. "I should point out that even if the economic costs weren't so high traditionalists would still be opposed to mass, ongoing, diverse immigration. That's because we believe that the different ethnic and national traditions are important to preserve, and so we don't want them to be undermined by open borders."

    That the migrants are culturally in conflict with us, inclined to bad economic outcomes and constitute the sea in which jihadist fish swim shows that those who support mass immigration on economic grounds and with the image of a rainbow of harmony are being deceptive.

    But it's important to say: that is not the main point.

    The main point is: mass non-white immigration into white countries and forced integration is white genocide.

    A second, lesser but still important point is: mass non-white immigration into specific historically white countries plus forced integration means destruction for those particular nations.

    The world is not a poorer place if white people are permitted to continue to exist. And the world is not a poorer place if specific nations such as the Australian nation continue to exist.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Opposition to genocide is a universal obligation. But in practice, liberals, including both right and left liberals, are for white genocide.

    Conservatives are theoretically committed to opposing genocide even if it is happening to whites, because according to conservatism elements of identity that are not chosen can still be precious. Race is an un-chosen element of identity. That means different ethnic and national traditions are important to preserve, even though they inevitably include race. There is no principled reason within conservatism why ethnic and national traditions are fit only to be swept from the Earth and forcibly blended away if those traditions are white.

    That doesn't prove conservatism is a perfect political philosophy. But it does show it is better than liberalism of the left or the right.

    ReplyDelete
  3. It sure puts paid to the argument that these people are refugees. If the entire journey is planned in advance from their country of origin they are not fleeing anything at all.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Mark Moncrieff: "It sure puts paid to the argument that these people are refugees. If the entire journey is planned in advance from their country of origin they are not fleeing anything at all."

    Right.

    But if Australia is defined as "a nation of immigrants" they are entitled to do that. Because Australia doesn't exist in that case except for people like them coming here to create it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Camp of the Saints has become reality for Australia.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "I should point out that even if the economic costs weren't so high traditionalists would still be opposed to mass, ongoing, diverse immigration. That's because we believe that the different ethnic and national traditions are important to preserve, and so we don't want them to be undermined by open borders."

    Nor do we want to be reduced to a minority - and a despised minority at that - in the country our forebears founded and built.

    ReplyDelete
  7. RD: "Nor do we want to be reduced to a minority - and a despised minority at that - in the country our forebears founded and built."

    That's right. We don't want that.

    Yet we live under the rule of an international anti-white establishment that has made it clear that policies that will inevitably have that effect are here to stay.

    We know it's not a case of misunderstanding. Facts such as those revealed by Greg Sheridan show that the policies are disastrous, even in the economic terms by which they have been justified. Such revelations have no effect on the anti-white establishment.

    All that happens is that governments advance mass immigration undemocratically, by stealth, like Tony Blair did in the United Kingdom, and from time to time there is a witch hunt, as with Jason Richwine, so that dissent is lessened because the cost of mentioning key facts is kept frighteningly high.

    This is where the conservative attitude fails. The conservative attitude is: things are basically OK. We have a great heritage; we should not overturn any apple-carts.

    The reality is that white people need an international political transformation just to avoid being genocided. The genocidal policies are already in place, and so is an elite determined to maintain them. That is our heritage: an international death-trap.

    Conservative virtues like deference, glad submission to social inequality, caution and reluctance to act, unwillingness to do or say things that the dominant forces in society declare un-respectable and reverence for elite intellectual and artistic culture will lead only to the most radical outcome of all, that is white genocide by mass immigration and forced integration.

    Conservative theory is inadequate. It cannot guide us now, because the great conservative theorists never imagined any crime like this. It cannot give us a framework within which to place our crisis; the crisis itself is much larger and more fundamental than conservative thought. Conservative theorists like Edmund Burke are just dust motes in the total white world; a world that is being wiped away, down to the level of our very genes, never to return. Theories on how people like Englishmen and Frenchmen should act within this world can supply no external perspective on the abolition of the white world, its cultures and total heritage, and the genes without which any revival is about as realistic a prospect as a new Renaissance in Rwanda.

    Allow Australia to become like Afghanistan demographically, and all your theorizing will reach the same end here as it does there: the temperament of the people will not support white culture and its virtues. The people must have, and do and will have a culture that corresponds to them. The Christian convert Abdul Rahman must flee or die, because more freedom than that is neither comprehensible nor desirable for the average Afghan. Or in future, for the average Australian.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Conservative virtues like deference, glad submission to social inequality, caution and reluctance to act, unwillingness to do or say things that the dominant forces in society declare un-respectable and reverence for elite intellectual and artistic culture will lead only to the most radical outcome of all, that is white genocide by mass immigration and forced integration.

    Daybreaker, I agree it's important to raise this. I wouldn't necessarily call them conservative "virtues" but they are at times conservative "qualities".

    I don't think the idea is to encourage "one radical act for your civilisation and then walk away and go back to 'normal' life". That won't achieve much either.

    The idea is for men to return to what they should be anyway. The role of defenders of your own tradition should be there as a lifelong, ongoing commitment just as much as defenders of your own family. The two go together: what is the point of making sacrifices to raise children if you don't take care of the society that you are delivering these children into?

    The second great point of change is to reject the political culture of the mainstream right. The mainstream right is just as much a part of the liberal establishment as the mainstream left. It is mistaken to sit back and passively vote for them and expect things to change.

    The third great change is to accept that ideas matter, that institutions matter, that organisation matters. The right has too often found ways to withdraw from acting in these areas and abandoning them to the left.

    It's not enough to be morally or politically or religiously superior as an individual and to think that will do and to look on the political affray "from above". That is not only a sure path to defeat, it is not what we as men were created for. We were created to work together as the guardians of the life of a tradition. It is in this active role that we truly fulfil our natures.

    Finally, we need to be ready to provide a leadership and structure for when opportunities arise, as is clearly happening in France now.

    ReplyDelete
  9. That all makes sense to me.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Mark Richardson: "Daybreaker, I agree it's important to raise this. I wouldn't necessarily call them conservative "virtues" but they are at times conservative "qualities"."

    On the other hand, a lot of prosaic, formerly mainstream conservative virtues are virtues, not just on a personal and family level but politically, and specifically in our circumstances.

    "I don't think the idea is to encourage "one radical act for your civilisation and then walk away and go back to 'normal' life". That won't achieve much either."

    Exactly. Steadiness is a must. Fantasies of dramatic salvation are counterproductive.

    We need more intellectually absolutist, covertly centralized, undemocratic, unaccountable politics like we need a hole in the head. That's not an alternative to the present system, that is the present system.

    ReplyDelete
  11. That's not an alternative to the present system, that is the present system.

    Agreed. One problem with such a system is that it leaves politics in the hands of powerful sectional interests, or simply in the hands of those individuals with an above average level of egotism/narcissism who are willing to pursue political power for reasons of personal ambition.

    In either case, you don't get leaders who think in terms of the long-term interests of the whole society or who identify with the rank and file of society.

    Part of this has been brought about by the liberal pushing back of values into the individual, personal sphere and excluding them from the public sphere. It has recast the ideal of manhood to be focused on personal pursuits. So the average, capable, responsible man no longer has a sense of his larger duties; he exercises his conscience instead more narrowly in relation to his workplace or his family.

    We have to pose a different concept of what it means to be a responsible, capable man, one which extends the instinctive protector role to that of public service, understood not just to mean charity work, but taking a responsible interest in holding a tradition together.

    ReplyDelete
  12. NOTE: You can bypass the pay wall by copying the url and then pasting it in google. Just click on the google link after that and the entire article will appear.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Mark Richardson (Wednesday, 12 June 2013 14:46:00 GMT+10)...

    Amen to that.

    ReplyDelete

Note: only a member of this blog may post a comment.