Society/Culture Why Australia needs to lower its immigration intake

[Gethelred]

This thread is about a lot of things, but one of the things it is not about is crime.

The next person who seeks to make a connection between violent crime and immigration by posting about it in here will receive a threadban and an infraction equivalent to the racism it portrays.

Should you want to talk about violent crime, the 'African gangs' thread is both thataway:

Vic - Melbourne's Sudanese gangs

The Victorian government and police management have finally been shamed into admitting there's a problems with African gangs. On 20th December, after eight police were overpowered by a gang of 100 mainly South Sudanese youths who trashed a Werribee Airbnb-rented property, smashing car...

www.bigfooty.com

... and just as well monitored, so be extremely careful to remain within BF's rules.

As a reminder, the following is taken from BF rules:

You agree to not use the Service to submit or link to any Content which:

is dangerous to health, anti-vax, Covid denial etc,
is hateful, including sympathetic discussion of far-right/neo-Nazi tropes,
misinformation or disinformation,
defamatory,
threatening,
abusive,
bigotry,
likely to offend,
is spam or spam-like,
contains adult or objectionable content,
risks copyright infringement,
encourages unlawful activity (including illegal drug use, buying, selling etc),
or otherwise violates any laws,
or contains personal information of others,

You are entirely responsible for the content of, and any harm resulting from, that Content or your conduct, including any material posted under your account.

Let's stay on topic from here.

 

[skilts]

I'm not a huge fan of Jarred Diamond and his geographical determinism ideas, but it seems to hold for this example, there is a very limited number of domesticated staple food crops to pick from, and most of these are suited to temperate climates. There is no mass agriculture that has been developed yet that suits this sort of climate regime, anywhere in the world, so there is nothing to copy from. It requires the development of a whole new type of agriculture, possibly not using those crops.

Not sure of the reliability of my memory on this, but I seem to recall that soon after WWII there was an idea floated that the Jewish homeland should be located in the more remote areas of northern Western Australia. Would it be racist to suggest that such immigrants might have been able to make this area a goer?

 

[King Brown]

I’ve got 7 brothers and sisters.

How many children do each of them have though?

I know a Catholic family that is very large, oldest child is now 37, youngest is about 24. Number of grand children: 1. I also know the Shanahan family distantly (of the Australian fame), who have nine children all of 25+ adult age. They have five grand children.

Maybe there'll be more coming, but it'll take a lot of catching up to match the rate their parents generation were breeding at.

 

[Chief]

How many children do each of them have though?

None through to 5.

My friend's European Catholic family has 4 kids, he has 2.

What you'll find is future generations of non-Euro families will simply have fewer children as it makes less economic sense. You'll always get the hard core who have more kids for religious reasons and lower their own standard of living.

 

[King Brown]

Not sure of the reliability of my memory on this, but I seem to recall that soon after WWII there was an idea floated that the Jewish homeland should be located in the more remote areas of northern Western Australia. Would it be racist to suggest that such immigrants might have been able to make this area a goer?

It might be racist, but it wouldn't be false.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Not sure of the reliability of my memory on this, but I seem to recall that soon after WWII there was an idea floated that the Jewish homeland should be located in the more remote areas of northern Western Australia. Would it be racist to suggest that such immigrants might have been able to make this area a goer?

Possibly, it's hard to say if someone else could have invented something that so far we have been unable. I am sure it would be possible to produce food there on a small intensive scale, as we have been able to do in the Ord scheme. It is scaling that up to become an international food bowl on a mass scale where the problem is. It would need some group really dedicated to making it work in the long term and prepared to put up with lots of trial and error, and commit the research and funding to it.

 

[Proud SJW]

I’ve got 7 brothers and sisters.

Oh, well I suppose in the face of such relevant and pertinent information, you win the "argument".

 

[Xsess]

Can one of the resident genius's explain how in any context the Hong Kong and Singapore population scenario has any relevance whatsoever to Australia? They are port cities and key trade hubs into China. Literally bottomless dollars for infrastructure and political systems that allow for big picture planning.

 

[Proud SJW]

It isn't. The new entrants to the job market will contribute to their own retirement savings from the day they join the workforce till the day they retire. Most 30- and 40-somethings of today will be in that position at retirement. Old age pensions will spike in the medium term but will decline in the longer term after that when those 30-somethings hit retirement age. Their children and grand children will not need to support their pensions.

At least in theory. Whether compulsory super contributions is enough is always open to debate.

Those are the major flaws in your argument.

 

[Proud SJW]

Not sure of the reliability of my memory on this, but I seem to recall that soon after WWII there was an idea floated that the Jewish homeland should be located in the more remote areas of northern Western Australia. Would it be racist to suggest that such immigrants might have been able to make this area a goer?

Taylor submitted a similar proposal in the South African farmers thread.
I had a brief look, the main obstacles would be soil quality (or lack of it) and water supply. Basically, readying the area for farming would be tantamount to terraforming and would require significant government intervention and subsidy. Or, you know, an agricultural Elon Musk, as it wouldn't be all that different to setting up farms on Mars really, when you think about it.

But if someone were to throw the money and ingenuity at it, the South Africans would be the ones I'd choose to give it a shot, based entirely upon experience and know how. It's dead land otherwise, even cattle stations aren't really viable in northern WA, for the most part.

 

[King Brown]

Most of the entrepreneurial South Africans already live in Rose Bay.

 

[King Brown]

The Greens have never seen an infrastructure project they didn't hate.

https://www.theage.com.au/national/...als-greens-halt-6-7b-dud-20180307-p4z3am.html

(except for their bizarre fetish for the anachronistic light rail)

Can't imagine Australia fitting 50 million in with this kind of decision making.

 

[Eagle Wrath]

Not sure of the reliability of my memory on this, but I seem to recall that soon after WWII there was an idea floated that the Jewish homeland should be located in the more remote areas of northern Western Australia. Would it be racist to suggest that such immigrants might have been able to make this area a goer?

We no longer own those parts of Australia. So it would be considered racist to take those areas.

 

[Proud SJW]

We no longer own those parts of Australia. So it would be considered racist to take those areas.

No, it would be considered against the law. WTF has racism got to do with it other than assumed motive?

Besides which, there is plenty of land out there neither under native title nor claimed.
And of the land under native title, plenty of it is being mined as we speak, because the natives themselves aren't necessarily opposed to that when a dollar or three is in the offing. They're as willing to profit from their land as anyone else is, and native title has legally made that possible. Do you seriously think the objective of native title legislation is to enable the indigenous Australians to remain a stone age people?

Maps are as of 2006, but there wouldn't have been much change since then:
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/speeches/site-navigation-19

 

[strung_out7]

No, it would be considered against the law. WTF has racism got to do with it other than assumed motive?

Besides which, there is plenty of land out there neither under native title nor claimed.
And of the land under native title, plenty of it is being mined as we speak, because the natives themselves aren't necessarily opposed to that when a dollar or three is in the offing. They're as willing to profit from their land as anyone else is, and native title has legally made that possible. Do you seriously think the objective of native title legislation is to enable the indigenous Australians to remain a stone age people?

Maps are as of 2006, but there wouldn't have been much change since then:
https://www.humanrights.gov.au/news/speeches/site-navigation-19

Reading the notices in newspapers, there has been a lot of native title acquisition recently in WA. The map might be outdated slightly

 

[Proud SJW]

Reading the notices in newspapers, there has been a lot of native title acquisition recently in WA. The map might be outdated slightly

It probably is, but that doesn't change anything.

I'm actually considering that setting up something like a high-tech farming community on otherwise (relatively) useless indigenous land would be a great thing for all involved. Better than another goddamned mine at any rate. Allocate all the money usually sent to other countries in the form of "aid". There's 4 billion or so right there.
Build whole communities. Housing, hospitals, universities specialising in agriculture. Electricity provided from desert solar panels, supplying not only these high-tech communities but the entire north west of WA... for a profit. Or trade electricity for water with Darwin.
Hell, enough solar panels in the northwest tended by a community could conceivably provide supply for the electricity needs of the entire state.

Involve the indigenous folks, get them to work the farms and send their kids to those universities. Tell them they can either live in the communities, or come and work on the farms in exchange for housing and education for their kids. Choice is theirs.

Watch what happens when you give them an actual opportunity for something more than just sit-down money.

As a social experiment, it would be insanely useful. Dare to dream.
I'm sure the ravenous left would put a spanner in the works somehow though. Not fair on the rest of Australia, or something-something.

 

[King Brown]

I'm sure the ravenous left would put a spanner in the works somehow though. Not fair on the rest of Australia, or something-something.

Great post in total, and yes, self-actualisation for the indigenous has always been troublesome for the liberal-left. They still fails to reconcile terra nullius and Wild Rivers legislation.

 

[Proud SJW]

Yeah, I know.

 

[medusala]

So what you're really saying is that with the right planning it could be done?

Right planning in a proper democracy is VERY hard. See Sydney airport, see Heathrow expansion.

 

[skilts]

We no longer own those parts of Australia. So it would be considered racist to take those areas.

You seem to have missed the part in my post where I referred to it being an idea mooted immediately post-World War II.

 

[Eagle Wrath]

You seem to have missed the part in my post where I referred to it being an idea mooted immediately post-World War II.

Not really. You said the idea was mooted back then but then you asked if we could use remote parts of Australia now to create a city. I like the idea and it has been mentioned in WA plenty of times. But the negatives far out way the positives.

 

[medusala]

Not sure of the reliability of my memory on this, but I seem to recall that soon after WWII there was an idea floated that the Jewish homeland should be located in the more remote areas of northern Western Australia. Would it be racist to suggest that such immigrants might have been able to make this area a goer?

Very possible, look at the Mennonites in Paraguay. Very successful farmers in a tough place.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Not sure of the reliability of my memory on this, but I seem to recall that soon after WWII there was an idea floated that the Jewish homeland should be located in the more remote areas of northern Western Australia. Would it be racist to suggest that such immigrants might have been able to make this area a goer?

It's correct, with the minor exception that it was underway prior to the war..

Following the Evian Conference, the London-based Freeland League (founded in 1935) proposed the purchase of seven million acres in the East Kimberley region of Western Australia (encompassing the properties of Connor, Durack and Doherty) as a farming settlement for a potential 50 000 refugees from Nazism. The League envisaged that a vanguard party of 500 to 600 'pioneers' would construct homes, a power station, irrigation works, etc, pending the arrival of the main body of colonists.

Dr Isaac Nachman Steinberg (1888–1957) was sent out from London in 1939 to investigate the scheme's feasibility and to enlist governmental and communal endorsement. A skilled emissary, he stayed in Australia throughout the war and later wrote a book on his experience, Australia: The Unpromised Land.Steinberg won the support of churches, leading newspapers, many prominent political and public figures (including Western Australian Premier J C Willcock) and a number of Jewish leaders.

The project came to nothing in the end, however, primarily because of concerns that the settlers would drift inevitably and in large numbers to the cities. Forty-seven per cent of the public opposed the scheme in a 1944 opinion poll and, in July of that year, Prime Minister Curtin formally rejected the proposal. Curtin's decision had bipartisan political support.

http://guides.naa.gov.au/safe-haven/chapter2/kimberley-scheme.aspx

 

[skilts]

It's correct, with the minor exception that it was underway prior to the war..

Following the Evian Conference, the London-based Freeland League (founded in 1935) proposed the purchase of seven million acres in the East Kimberley region of Western Australia (encompassing the properties of Connor, Durack and Doherty) as a farming settlement for a potential 50 000 refugees from Nazism. The League envisaged that a vanguard party of 500 to 600 'pioneers' would construct homes, a power station, irrigation works, etc, pending the arrival of the main body of colonists.

Dr Isaac Nachman Steinberg (1888–1957) was sent out from London in 1939 to investigate the scheme's feasibility and to enlist governmental and communal endorsement. A skilled emissary, he stayed in Australia throughout the war and later wrote a book on his experience, Australia: The Unpromised Land.Steinberg won the support of churches, leading newspapers, many prominent political and public figures (including Western Australian Premier J C Willcock) and a number of Jewish leaders.

The project came to nothing in the end, however, primarily because of concerns that the settlers would drift inevitably and in large numbers to the cities. Forty-seven per cent of the public opposed the scheme in a 1944 opinion poll and, in July of that year, Prime Minister Curtin formally rejected the proposal. Curtin's decision had bipartisan political support.

http://guides.naa.gov.au/safe-haven/chapter2/kimberley-scheme.aspx

Ta for that. Most enlightening.

 

[geelong_crazy26]

But our problem isnt with population density at the moment, and it isnt an issue on the horizon at all. We're actually incredibly sparsely populated. Among the lowest in the world. That's not going to change much with our current migration levels at the 1-200k P/A mark, and at our current rate of growth.

The real pressing issue at present is a rapidly aging population. That is a far more pressing issue than population density. Slowing down migration (in addition to our decreasing birth rates) would have a profoundly negative effect on our economy, contributing to this phenomena even more.

Its been shown time and time again that our current levels of migration provide an overall net bonus to the economy. Slowing it down slows down population growth (bad) and speeds up our problems with an aging population (also bad).

I reckon we have the settings about right.

Peter Dutton thinks the same thing, and he's not exactly a champion of the Left or a huge fan of migrants generally now is he?

Our current immigration levels do help grow our GDP but they do not help grow our GDP on a per capita basis which is what determines our quality of living .The above graph is clear evidence that immigration is bad for our quality if life especially for the middle and working class.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/blogs/a...f/news-story/656f5ec3395d1de1470f14098bbf7d7a

The liberal party supports high levels of immigration because big business loves it, as I keep saying high levels of immigrations means more workers and customers making wages lower and commodities more expensive .

 

[geelong_crazy26]

no they are not. they impose constraints to access land and constraints to access markets. clear violations.

Seeds if you don't have boarders you don't have a country, we live in a world made up of countries so boarders are a fundamental part of this world. Countries are than free to protect those boarders as they see fit .

Your idea of globalist society is far left wing fairy-tale.