Submitted by Shatner'sBassoon on Fri, 11/06/2015 - 19:48
AN ALL-ENCOMPASSING KALEIDOSCOPIC JOIN-THE-DOTS/ADULT COLOURING BOOK EXPERIMENTAL PROJECT IN NARCISSISTIC/ONANISTIC BIG PICTURE PARASITIC FORUM BLEEDING.
LIKE POLITICAL LIFE, PARTICIPATION IS WELCOME, ENCOURAGED EVEN, BUT NOT NECESSARY.
That’s a half dozen times now that Facto has been on here trying to dance around the issue.
You ever noticed how much Facto acts like an actual politician on here ?
He’s not like you or I , arguing for and against a topic.
By that I mean his constant refusal to answer a direct question about an issue , changing subject, ad hominem attacks. Throwing words out in a continuous refusal to focus on the issue directly .
It’s not his policy , he’s not running for election. Why would he act like this?
Because he IS a member of the ALP.
And if a member of the ALP can’t even defend their own policy, why is it getting a run ?
Tell me how Australian’s benefit from this policy, Facto.
The issue of parent visas is a difficult one. There are social benefits from allowing parents to come particularly as they can reduce the need for child care and increase their sponsor's ability to work. The problem is to set the costs at a fair level so it is not just another rort for the wealthy but not so low that it become easily abused.
The proposed ALP policy is an attempt to deal with the back log created by the current restrictions. In that context it is much fairer. The concerns expressed here about numbers are over-stated as are the concerns about dependency on government services.
Even in the long term the numbers will be small compared to the existing population. They will also be entering a family that has guaranteed support. Further, there seems to be a general assumption here that these will be relatively poor. This is not true. Many will be entering homes with much higher incomes than the $83,000 minimum and many will bring significant wealth with them. From my perspective the policy is a reasonable solution to a difficult problem. The fact that those committed to reductions in immigration or stuck in stereotypical thought patterns do not like it does not make it bad policy.
“The concerns expressed here about numbers are over-stated as are the concerns about dependency on government services.”
Evidence please. Fact is you’ve got no idea of the numbers or the added pressures that these people will place on society.
The only definite is that they will be a burden on the taxpayers and those forced to make room for non productive, non citizens.
You then say it’s a reasonable solution to a difficult problem.
Which problem ?
There is never, and has never , been any offer to reunify immigrants with their elderly parents at the expense of encumbent Australians. The entire concept is patently ridiculous.
There is nothing fair about the policy.
The fact that family reunification visas are already provided at the rate of 17000 people per year is onerous enough. That’s the population of Warringah shire every 15 years in aging parents. This is too generous already.
The idea that any limits to how many come in is absolutely non justifiable.
Nothing fair about it unless you’re assuming that the encumbent population of Australia is the least deserving of any consideration. Which you obviously do.
So why cut the application cost by one fourth? and then take away the cap of 15,000 a year to no cap?
Very weird policy, Blowin has some good points and concern.
This article looks at the facts and figures quite good https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/05/labors-elderly-parent-visas-wil...
Nothing difficult about it.
There is absolutely no reason why parents of immigrants would be allowed to live in Australia for at least ten years without ever contributing .
Reunification visas should be set at $100K per year minimum. Why should they be able to enjoy the fruits of our hard work for $500 per year ?
There should be an undoubted benefit to Australia for hosting them. Australians pay some of the highest rates of tax in the world. When our tax dollar dollars don’t extend to taking care of our own citizenry already , we should not be extending lifestyle charity to foreigners.
Parent visas MAY reduce the need for child care .......but they will definitely INCREASE the pressure on hospitals, doctors , water , sewerage, waste , the environment , congestion, liveability and every piece of infrastructure .
Your arguments are arguments against all immigration, which has been endlessly argued here. Unfortunately for your view, the majority of Australians still support immigration. They may prefer a reduction but no poll, to my knowledge, has ever shown a majority for stopping it completely. The specifics of parent visas make them socially preferable to most other immigrants. The current situation is unfair as it assigns a limited number of visas. I would suggest that your proposal that there be no parent visas at all is not politically viable ......... ie people won't vote for it. As this is a democracy the question then becomes how to allocate visas fairly.
"You then say it’s a reasonable solution to a difficult problem.
Which problem ?"
Exactly. There's isn't a problem. Labor is creating a problem for the coming decades in a desperate attempt to buy votes. Political parties always do this, but not normally with such game changing, long term, potentially monumentually catastrophic effects. Gratuitous, fairly inconsequestial quick fixes are usually par for the course... not this time...why?
"Further, there seems to be a general assumption here that these will be relatively poor. This is not true. Many will be entering homes with much higher incomes than the $83,000 "
No assumption about them being relatively poor at all. The assumption is that this is not a lot of money for any nuclear family in most australian cities and towns to live on. To add 2 to 4 more dependent granparents to that relatively modest income and say 'no problem' is fanciful to say the least.
Yes some will have incomes of $100 - $200 k, which going by the new LNP first home buyers scheme - a policy labor supports! - puts them in the 'low to middle income' bracket. So, what's deemed barely enough to raise a family and buy a house, is now deemed by Labor as plenty enough to raise a family, buy a house, and support two sets of grandparents for a ten year term, pppfffff! ....fanciful indeed...
And, anyone with half a brain and slighty more than one eyed vision knows these people aren't going anywhere after that ten year term. Imagine the media outcry from the usual suspects if australia started trying to send these people home at their most fragile time in life. A time when they will be clogging up an alteady overburdened health system.
So dumb and short sighted it beggars belief.
Now let’s see Blindboy argue against a usually pro- mass migration demography professor from Melbourne University
This is literally the worst idea for Australia’s society ever put forward.
Parental visas are the least beneficial of all immigration. We gan absolutely nothing from it , but we lose plenty.
I have never put forward an argument towards halting all immigration. Classic Blindboy sophistry.
It is hard to comment without seeing the whole piece but a few points. The argument is based on a very high uptake of the visas which is probably not realistic. It is also based on the assumption that ALL these self funded visa holders will at some point access government services at around 25% of the level of existing permanent aged migrants. There does not seem to be any research or data backing up this claim. If you actually follow through the links they take you to the Productivity Commission Report on which the arguments are based. If you accept that as authoritative OK, but it thoroughly destroys the arguments against the current level of immigration that you have been running for years. So if you accept it, you win on this issue and lose the broader argument.
Anecdotal evidence i.e. in the real world worked with many from the Subcontinent who had parents here.
Many earned $200k a year and the parents certainly were child care minders (thats main point there were here)
Another insight for Blowin was they often had put their kids through WA unis at full fees and were quite wealthy them selves.
I would expect all those Chinese pushing real estate prices up are not short of a quid themselves.
Obviously not all but the numbers are quite significant.
I support immigration but am strongly against the notion of a big Australia.
From very early on in my life I was exposed to the benefits our migrate communities, I went to school in a suburb with large Greek and Italian communities. I'm a strong supporter of cultural diversity.
Our migration policy once was bipartisan and enjoy broad community support. Australians might have called immigrates wogs but they greatly admired how hard they worked and contributed to our country. It's worth saying again, migrates were seen as contributing to our country.
Since Howard opened the flood gates there has been increasing tension about immigration as rightfully so. People aren't stupid, they aren't blind to the abuse of visa system whether its rich Chinese buying up real estate, foreign workers on shonky contracts or the wholesale abuse of and selling down the dunny our universities to attract full fee paying foreign students many of whom struggle with basic English literacy (note the current government outsourced student visa approvals to the universities some time ago). To argue nothing is wrong here is to be blind to reality.
Someone above said the status quo will stoke people's racists fears more than anything else (or words to that effect) and I couldn't agree more. I'm tolerant and support migration, but only to a point, for example I would be red hot angry if the centre of Melbourne or Sydney ends up like Auckland right now. The question to ask yourself is would you be happy for one or more of our major cities to more closely resemble an Asian city or one from the sub-continent if current migration levels continue unabated. Migration needs to be drastically reduced to sustainable levels now, not next year not in a decade and it's about time our politicians started being honest with us.
thank you guysmiley!
I think the vast majority of australians see the issue exactly as you've described it - despite the 'that's racist' rhetoric from certain quarters....
"...Australians might have called immigrates wogs but they greatly admired how hard they worked and contributed to our country. It's worth saying again, migrates were seen as contributing to our country."
Absolutely! I have no problem with sensible immigration. And if I may racial stereotype for a moment, I have no problem at all with chinese immigration for the reasons indod pointed out in the other thread.
However, when immigration is totally out of balance, both in terms of relative to the resident population, and when a certain nationality is overrunning the system, you're gonna get racism. Not least because it's virtually impossible to talk about numbers without breaching the contemporary sensibilities that have developed around the issue.
Immigration is way out of balance in relation to resident population. And immigration is way out of balance in terms of who's taking advantage of australia's generousity. Spread the love around...
"...Migration needs to be drastically reduced to sustainable levels now, not next year not in a decade and it's about time our politicians started being honest with us."
It's bad enough we've been taken for a ride in terms of the true benefits of immigration, but the government's contempt (governments of both persuasions) and outright dismissal of concerns is now at dangerous levels.
Agreed fellas, immigration is good, massive unbalanced immigration is bad mmkay.
I just wish the Greens could find the cojones to articulate a cogent argument against this population free-for-all.
Tyranny is taxation without representation.
Neither of our only possible democratic parties recognises the overwhelming desire of the Australian people to reduce immigration. We have no representation.
That's why I keep saying that, considering our voting system was designed from the outset to entrench a two-party system, and also that we won't be allowed to change the system, the best we can do is to manufacture a minority government and force them to negotiate and compromise, the way a democracy should.
I agree GS. Immigration policy should be reflective of a nations needs at the time and implemented objectively with an eye on possible social and economic outcomes. This view was propounded by Australian historian Geoffrey Blainey several decades ago .He got no thanks for it from some at the time, being labeled a racist but hey, its a free country .
Question for all- what should our immigration policy be when millions of people living in the delta regions of Asia and the sub continent and also islands in the Indian and Pacific ocean are displaced by rising sea levels and are looking for a home? Presuming you believe this may happen of course. It would ,I submit be prudent to think it may.
Crossthat bridge when we come to it.
But it’s not helping any potential future decision making if we fill our limited habitation island home with country shopping immigrants in the meantime.
Guy, correct me if I am wrong but you stated that you don't want our cities to end up looking like Auckland with its high percentage of Asian and Indian immigrants. Racism is discrimination based on race. Are you suggesting that Australia's immigration policy should do that? Maybe you can explain but to me yep, sounds like racism.
Sorry , Blindboy, but people are allowed to control their borders and the cultural makeup of their homelands however they like.
Call it racism if you like....no one gives a fuck.
Your artificially authorised morality is reaching its shelf life.
That word is losing power daily.
It's just so easy and lazy to play the race card.
I think when you're talking about a balanced culture where people aren't going to get their noses out of joint, then culture does have to come into it.
How do you reckon the locals would go if you rapidly imported hundreds of thousands of Westerners into Tanzania?
I don't reckon they'd be into it.
Is that racist?
Maybe, but it's natural and understandable.
Balance Blindboy, balance.
It’s not just easy and lazy ....in this instance it’s inappropriate.
Of course Australians should have a say in the cultural future of their country. It just goes to show the overreach of the globalists when they feel empowered enough to publicly shame people into acquiescing to the open borders , multi - tribal dystopian future they want to foist on us.
Their misplaced self-righteousness makes them dangerous.
There is no such thing as balanced racism Andy and there has been a constant under current of racism in this debate since the beginning. If you want to be an apologist for it, well that's your decision. The saddest thing is that it is based on the fear of being displaced. It's the settler mentality. We stole the land from indigenous people, as a consequence we fear it being "stolen" from us. Apart from its inherent racism the major problem for this view is that there is no realistic immigration scenario under which it is remotely likely. The population of Australia will continue to be largely of European ancestry for the forseeable future. That's not racism., That's demographics. Those worried about an Asian take over will find life much more comfortable without that awkward twist in their knickers.
You think the fear of being culturally displaced is a crutch for the weak spirited , BB ?
Are you drunk ?
What do you think happened to the blackfellas ? And how has it worked out for them ?
What do you think WW2 was about ? You think it’s a childish nightmare which doesn’t exist in the bright sunlight of the intelligent adult ?
Of course the Chinese view utilising the initial diaspora as a wedge to ultimately colonise us. You’d have to be stupid to not recognise the fact.
The Australian born population is about 14M . The population of people of Chinese descent has gone from negligible to 1.6M in just over a decade.
If it wasn’t for immigration from other countries, the populations of Sydney and Melbourne would be close to 25 percent Chinese already.
Don't be so disingenuous, I'm talking about balanced immigration, no matter how much and/or where it's from.
The thought of huge numbers of Americans turning up here chills me to the bone.
You seem incapable of a real-world perspective, you want unlimited population growth and then wonder why people don't like it, why parties like PHONy rocks up.
With the amount of self-flagellating white guilt you've got, it's no wonder you can't engage in a reasonable discussion.
Misinformed racist bullshit. As expected. You might as well put on a white hood and get yourself a burning cross Blowoff. Yawn, enough nonsense for one day. You guys hang around, have a chat and elect your Grand Wizard.
Ol' regressive BB, part of the out-of-touch well-off who are ever so correct ;)
Bit of surfing happening over on the other channel.
Just a friendly heads up.
Well this seems particularly relevant at this little juncture in the conversation.
Its cut and paste, so sorry about the not thinking bit. It's NYT so sorry about that too.
But it's first hand experience so that cancels out the NYT spin bit. And it involves identity politics, so that should cancel out the cut and paste bit...maybe...possibly...
"I am a Wirangu man, Indigenous to Australia, I’m very heavily tied up in my community politics: a member of our native title claimant group, president of my local football club. I work supporting children in the juvenile justice system.
I’ve been a Labor man all my life. My mother was a Labor voter, my father was a Labor voter. But I’ve got to say over the last few years, I started looking at Greens and independents. An issue close to my heart is the drilling in the Great Australian Bight. It’s just too pristine to mine out there.
What do you worry about in the future?
In a lot of our big rural towns, the ice epidemic is massive. South Australia, population-wise, isn’t a big state so we don’t have a lot of services like rehabilitation centers. I’ve seen a lot of kids in my community, both black and white, suffering horrendously with the fallout from ice.
Things are getting hard. In South Australia, we pay more for power than anywhere else in the country. A lot of people are living under the poverty line.
What kind of Australia do you want to see?
I want a better Australia for everyone. We’re a country that’s very rich in resources and yet we still have people in third-world conditions. It’s unacceptable. In outback South Australia, there’s some of the biggest uranium mines in the world, yet you have people living in squalor.
We pay billions of dollars in foreign aid. I think first and foremost, we need to clean up our own backyard before we give our money to other countries.
I think there’s too many migrants coming into the country. I just think we should put the brakes on it for a couple years until we clean the country up. They’re trying to encourage migrants to go to rural areas. I’m just talking about my community here in Port Lincoln — there’s no work here for people. There’s got to be other industries set up. We’ve got a shortage of housing, a shortage of jobs.
Our government has to work with the people and invest in the people. We’re the people that put them in power, they’ve got to listen to us too."
Too many migrants?
Who is this racist scoundrel...
Confound him and his settler mentality.
@H2O, I remember how Geoffrey Blainey was treated. Read many of his works along with Manning Clark's 6 volume history of Australia. Blainey was most unfairly treated, he was a great Australian and someone who cared very deeply for his country. You ask a very good question about sea levels to which I have no answer. I'll hopefully be dead when that apocalypse happens.
@BB, I think our country and its people has/have an absolute right to ask the big questions about its future, including population size and racial composition and if you think that's racist good luck to you. I want to live in a peaceful harmonious country where the people are actively engaged in the political process. Australians have been totally ignored by government for too long when it comes to immigration and its right and proper that things change. We need a full and frank national conversation that informs government policy in this and other areas. Ignoring the issue will only make things worse, like Trump or Brexit worse. Would you like to see One Nation with a dozen senators or with the balance of power in both houses for example? How would that play out then?
Can't see the wood for the trees?
This'll be the last time I raise the whip against the dead horse.
Shit, Shit Lite, or maybe, you know, something else?
This could help you decide on the "something else".
Can be tailored to your electorate.
Doctors on the NSW north coast are concerned about an emerging threat to mental health. In a disturbing trend a number of middle aged men of European ancestry have developed Chigraphobia, an irrational fear of Chinese grandmothers. In its most extreme form sufferers believe that millions of Chinese grandmothers are plotting to take over Australia and destroy its culture.
Attempts to treat the problem with cognitive behavioural therapy have so far been unsuccessful and doctors treating the condition are now experimenting with a variety of approved psychiatric drugs. One doctor who wished to remain anonymous stated that he was not optimistic about the long term prospects of sufferers particularly those suffering comorbidity with Islamophobia and believe the most likely outcome is early onset dementia.
"Many sufferers already show signs of a lack of contact with reality in other areas and show an inability to comprehend simple written communications. They are also prone to outbursts of anger and the use of obscene and offensive language if their delusions are challenged."
Hahaha. Hundreds of thousands, no, millions of sufferers. Non-sufferers will be a minority within a decade. This is the worst mental health disaster EVER.
"Many sufferers ... are also prone to outbursts of anger and the use obscene and offensive language if their delusions are challenged."
"Smug self-righteous prats with no real interest beyond self-interest. See ya boys, 'cos that's what you are, a bunch of overgrown fucking adolescents."
Seeya Saturday night.
I think its more...
Nah that's silly, a phobia is an irrational fear, and there's nothing irrational about the fear that Labor have become China's bitch
Kinda funny you put identity politics in there when Labor's last ditch, terribly desperate, got nothing left move, was a play on identity politics..
Hope it pays of for ya...
Guess who is back? Back again? KAK is back! Tell a friend...
And lest we forget...
Eerily familiar arguments on here or what?? I imagine it to be quite edifying to be singing from the same hymn-sheet as Kunty Joe Hildebrand, let alone KAK.
Or maybe not.
I see you refreshed it in order to get a bite , Facto.
Unfortunately, you failed to consider that the days of getting bent out of shape over the false moral authority deployed by the globalists are at an end.
Or to put it plainly......no one gives a fuck about your opinion . Cause that’s all it is . Not some compelling truth.
To be taken In the nicest possible way of course.
PS You got a benefit to Australia for that policy yet ?
"I'm forever blowing bubbles, pretty bubbles in the air..."
Via The Guardian comes a non-fake lefty at last:
She marked her return on Facebook, with a video straight out of a Quentin Tarantino film, buttoning her jacket, arranging her hair and slipping on stiletto heels to heavy metal music. “I’m ready again,” she declared to camera. “Let’s get this bus rolling.”
Mette Frederiksen, leader of Denmark’s opposition Social Democrats, was in hospital with food poisoning when the prime minister, Lars Løkke Rasmussen, called a general election last week, and was two days late joining the campaign.
But the 41-year-old has all the momentum, with her left-of-centre bloc starting with an eight percentage point lead, and few doubting that she will become Denmark’s youngest-ever prime minister after the election on 5 June.
“I’m super excited because we so desperately need a change of government,” said campaign volunteer Malou Astrup Clemmensen as she prepared to hand out roses on the streets of Copenhagen for Frederiksen’s campaign launch.
A victory for Frederiksen would be a boon for Europe’s social democrats as they gaze across the continent at a dispiriting political landscape. But it would not be without controversy, for under Frederiksen the party has been ruthlessly reshaped: dragged to the left economically – and sharply to the right on immigration.
“For me, it is becoming increasingly clear that the price of unregulated globalisation, mass immigration and the free movement of labour is paid for by the lower classes,” she said in a recent biography.
Denmark’s current right-wing coalition government last year enacted the most anti-immigration legislation in Danish history and, rather than position her party in stark opposition, Frederikson has embraced much of it.
Under her leadership, the SD have called for a cap on “non-western immigrants”, for asylum seekers to be expelled to a reception centre in North Africa, and for all immigrants to be forced to work 37 hours a week in exchange for benefits.
She has reached out to the populist Danish People’s party (DPP), doing a series of joint interviews with its leader, Kristian Thulesen Dahl, and discussing cooperating with them in government.
But it is the government policies her party has supported or failed to oppose which have been most alarming for her allies in the left-of-centre red bloc. The Social Democrats voted in favour of a law allowing jewellery to be stripped from refugees, and a burqa and niqab ban, and abstained rather than voted against a law on mandatory handshakes irrespective of religious sentiment at citizenship ceremonies, and a plan to house criminal asylum seekers on an island used for researching contagious animal diseases. In February, she backed what the DPP has branded a “paradigm shift” – a push to make repatriation, rather than integration, the goal of asylum policy.
“I find it odd that it’s possible to make such a shift, not just in your policy but also in your fundamental values,” Morton Østergaard, leader of the centrist Social Liberal party, told the Observer. “What’s different in Denmark is that we’re seeing parties coming out of a Liberal or Social Democrat value base eating into national conservatism in a race-to-the-bottom contest, because they’ve decided that the marginal voter can’t get tough enough on immigrants.”
Many believe her party’s new populist profile is a pure power play. The Danish People’s party has slipped from 21% in the 2015 elections to below 13%, according to a poll of polls by the Berlingske newspaper.
An internal Social Democrat survey of the party’s core voters carried out last autumn found that 37% of loyal Social Democrat voters thought immigration policy was too lax. And this was after three years of the most anti-immigration government in Danish history.
I disagree with some of the culture war stuff and the discriminatory immigration. But that’s window dressing. The major breakthrough here is that a left-leaning party has realised that open borders globalisation destroys working and middle classes in developed economies. Including in Australia.
This counter-reformation makes the Left a choice. On one hand are the Fakes that address the cultural baggage of globalisation while becoming the useful idiots of gallivanting global capital. On the other are the class warriors that recognise open borders and mass immigration destroys wages and middle class standards of living.
One is fair dinkum and the other a total sell-out.
"They fly so high, nearly reach the sky...
Then like my dreams they fade and die..."
"Fortune's always hiding, I've looked everywhere...
I'm forever blowing bubbles, pretty bubbles in the air..."
No Saturday democracy sausage for you!
Rainbow pleb' kidz were weened on premature gang balloting.
AEC stand ready with Ant Sandbags & Barrels of Ant Rid
ABC Shop 'Ant farms' come complete with upper house chamber counter.
Ant infestation should only last a few years maybe a decade or an epoch tops.
Da weena is.... Da weena is....tbb lost count eons ago
So let's have a quick look at the COALition team, out there working hard for re-election. Well here's Scomo, the PM is over there, Scotty is chatting to Slomo and Mr. Morrison is practising his smiling and joking in front of the mirror. But where's Tony? Where's Josh? Where's Peter? We know Julie is suffering from political dysphasia and is unavailable and Barnaby has been gagged and hidden under the bed, but where's Mick? Ah yeh, of course, they're all around at Clive's place. It's a regular chorus of "Good onya mates" echoing around as they wash his feet, feed him on truffle flavoured caviar, take turns to massage his ego and tell him not to worry about the $70 million those lazy bastards who used to work for him claim they are owed. Whose fault is it the business went bust (all together now kiddies). "Not yours Clive". No no no, not yours Clive, not while collectively crawling up your fundamental orifice enables us to cling to one last sad and pathetic chance of hanging on to government. Yes we would have to sell our souls, but Clive, maaaate, you know that this is your big chance, if we cling on then maaaaate, you're made, we're in this together, what this nation really needs is another three years of leadership chaos, random policies and the old mates act. Clive, Clive, Clive, you're beautiful, a wonderful specimen of Australian manhood, what a physique, we love you, we love you, we love you, just give us your preferences and the world is your oyster, though maybe a fatted calf is more your culinary style.
"Labor's $1.5b plan to 'unlock' gas in the Northern Territory and Queensland would create more emissions than Adani coal mine, experts say.
The NT could add at least 30 million tonnes of CO2-equivalent per year, said Bill Hare, director of global research group Climate Analytics.
By contrast, Adani's scaled-down Carmichael mine would add a relatively modest 240,000 tonnes of direct CO2-equivalent emissions.
Greens climate spokesman Adam Bandt said that even if most of the gas is exported, fracking leaks so much toxic methane into the atmosphere that this project will be a giant taxpayer-funded carbon bomb."
It's pretty clear that Labor just aren't for real.
Probably true Andy, but utterly meaningless unless the emissions per unit of energy are considered ......... and then gas wins by a considerable distance. Fossil fuels will inevitably be used during the transition to renewables. Gas produces lower emissions than coal per unit of energy so yep , fuck the coal, go for the gas.