Friday, 17 May 2013

Multiculturalism and Mass Immigration III

Multiculturalism and Mass Immigration III

In 1973 the world economy changed, the warning signs had been there but no one really wanted to notice. Inflation and mass unemployment returned to Australia after being absent for decades. Both had existed in small measure but now they became dominate features of the economy. Inflation was brought under control but unemployment become permanent, it has never left since the early 1970’s. You would think that good policy would say that as unemployment was high immigration should stop or at least be curtained. Well for a time it was curtained but it never stopped and by the late 1970’s it was bigger than it had been. The big change in the period 1970-2000 was that now immigration from Asia and Muslim countries grew strongly. What had been small populations of a few thousand grew into the hundreds of thousands. In 1989 after the Tienanmen square massacre in China the Australian Government granted nearly 200,000 Chinese citizens in Australia at that time, permanent residence overnight. It should be pointed out not all stayed and it was popular at the time. But it gives a measure of the Australian Government’s commitment to immigration.

In 2000 immigration became a very controversial issue in Australia because of boats arriving from Indonesia with illegal refugees/asylum seekers. The people were not Indonesians but mostly from the Middle East. The Australian people have always been outraged by those who arrive without the Government’s permission, by extension, the peoples approval. It brought into disrepute Australia’s entire refugee policy, if refugees can decide for themselves why should we as a nation have a policy that admits them was the question the majority of Australian’s asked. There was a very vocal minority that said this was simply racism and that Australia was a wealthy country and that we should in effect have a policy of open borders. Immigration or at least refugee immigration was controversial, even in Parliament. The issue is unsettled, it remains highly controversial with the most extreme views being expressed on both sides of the often public debate.

Australia today has nearly 1 in 3 of it's population having been born overseas, in 100 years we have gone from 98% to 66% with no end in sight. Only Luxembourg has a higher immigrant population than Australia. If things continue as they have white Australians will be as much a memory as the white Australia policy itself.

Upon Hope Blog - A Traditional Conservative Future


  1. I'm always amazed by how quickly Australia's national attitude changed from "illegal immigrants are freeloaders" to "these people have sad stories, maybe we should accept them" to "you're a racist monster if you don't fling open the borders to everyone" (provided they're non-white, non-Christian).

  2. Correction re: "In 2000 immigration became a very controversial issue in Australia because of boats arriving from Indonesia with illegal refugees/asylum seekers."

    Given there is no civil war or strife in Indonesia, those illegal entrants crossing our watery border from that country are, ipso facto, not "refugees". None of them. Not one. Not a single, solitary one. Let us not allow the Left to frame our debate by forcing the use of emotionally loaded and erroneous terminology.

  3. Hello Guys

    I said it was controversial and to prove I'm even in trouble with people who I link too!

    First Plato, I don't think thats how most people view the subject, that is how the Liberal news put it without a doubt. But when I talk to people they do not have much sympathy for these people. One problem we have is many have private thoughts but not public words. When someone knows yours views they tend to be more likely to tell you how they really think instead of how they are supposed to feel.

    Sydney Trads, I agree they are not refugees which is why I made the point that even thou they leave from Indonesia they are not Indonesians. I do not like either term, do you have another one?

    Mark Moncrieff

  4. I responded to this before but I guess it didn't show up. What I meant by "national attitude" was not necessarily the majority opinion but rather what's acceptable in polite society. 20 years ago I'd have had no problem with openly advocating instant deportation for illegals, and I'd assume most people would agree with me. Nowadays you really have to pick your audience to say something like that!

  5. Dear Plato

    I received your post as an email not as a post.

    Your right in what you say and I believe there are three reasons, first is one you put in your email, that the media controls so much of what is regarded as polite conversation.

    Secondly is that so many have private thoughts but not public words, many wonder why they seem to be the only ones who think this way. I've felt like that and I know many agree with me when I speak, often people you wouldn't think of, but I would never have known that if I had kept my private thoughts private.

    Thirdly people don't want to seem extreme, they want good policy, tough but fair. But they don't want to be seen as being too extreme, because they are not. So they pick who to speak to about this and when challenged they often back right off. Not because they have changed their mind but because Liberals have become brilliant at learning to shut people up.