You are here

About immigration

Control of Immigration is possibly the paramount political issue of today. It effects our quality of life, our environment and our long-term sustainability, and yet many, including the author of this page, in anglophone nations — Australia, Canada and the United States — have been morally blackmailed into silence on this issue for decades.

It has been put to the author a number of times in the past that if our societies were to tolerate open discussion of the issue of population, let alone immigration, that it would automatically open a Pandora's box of racist xenophobia. In turn, it was said that this would lead to the splitting of the Australian working class along racial lines and the emergence of a mass fascist movement, against which the divided Australian working class would be powerless to resist.

It was implicitly held that anyone who questioned immigration could only have been driven to do so consequence of a deep inner flaw of racism. Hence, it was understood as the moral duty of all true humanitarians to denounce and shame mercilessly anyone who, by questioning immigration, revealed symptoms of this flaw. As a result, on one occasion in the early 1980's, the author witnessed a close friend and a member of a far left organisation who once, as a result of having suggested that Geoffrey Blainey was probably right on the question off immigration, denounced so savagely by another friend (the author's then partner) that he recanted soon after and never dared raise the topic again in my presence while he was alive. Earlier, in 1978, on an occasion in which the author, himself, in the presence of two other socialists, suggested that immigrants fleeing from communist Vietnam were more likely to be right wing1, he was himself denounced as racist. It was as a result of these sorts of experiences which led the author himself to keep his own serious misgivings about immigration largely to himself for many ensuing years.

It is emotionally far easier to extend a welcoming had to everyone in the world who wishes to come here than to try to prevent them from coming. Because of this, it is easy for proponents of immigration to depict themselves as having compassion and a social conscience and their opponents as selfish. In fact the reverse is far more often the case. The principle drivers of immigration, that is the growth lobby, comprised of land speculators and property developers and industries closely related such as banks and building materials manufacturers, are not driven by altruism, but rather, greed. Even though population growth must necessarily, on average lower the access of each individual member of their own national community to land and other natural resources and hence lower his/her standard of living, the growth lobby are, paradoxically, able to enrich themselves through this process. They enrich themselves at the expense of the rest of the national community and, indeed, the international community by using immigration to increase the demand for the commodity which they monopolise, namely land, and to provide them with customers who have acquired wealth from other countries.

Ostensibly left wing proponents of immigration, if they don't gain directly through immigration, are often demographically shielded from immigration by having occupations which are less threatened by immigration. Whilst they would have us believe that they are motivated by compassion for fellow human beings in poor countries, that compassion can only ever extend, in practice, to a small, almost insignificant, minority in those countries. Unless the numbers allowed to immigrate are increased to truly ridiculous proportions, the number of beneficiaries can only ever be a small. For the vast majority necessarily left behind, there can be no hope of becoming members of our comparatively more affluent society. Moreover, the additional demands made upon poor countries for resources by the increased populations of more affluent countries is more likely to increase, rather than reduce, their poverty.

Furthermore, the ostensibly left-wing proponents of immigration seem to have forgotten that charity should begin at home. By supporting high immigration, they have directly help cause the impoverishment of a good many of their poorer fellow citizens, principally through population-driven housing hyper-inflation, but also through the downward pressure that higher numbers of workers place on wages, or in the case of industries such as IT industry, their outright replacement .

Much of the content of this section of candobetter.org will be considered 'politically incorrect' by may of the 'bleeding heart' left-liberal creed, which, to some extent, even the author, himself, still identifies with. However, as much of the other content of this site does demonstrate practical concern for the fate of people from poorer third world countries such as in Iraq and Bolivia, to give two examples, we would hold that opposition to immigration is not altogether inconsistent with internationalism.

See also Immigration links, population

Footnotes

1. Years later — my best estimate of the date is probably the early 1990's — I read a story of how activists from the Vietnam Moratorium movement planned to hold a re-union dinner in one of the Melbourne municipal town halls. As it happened, many of the local community and some of the Councillors were right-wing Vietnamese and when they learned of the planned dinner they loudly objected. Sadly, the former Vietnam Moratorium activists backed down and held their re-union dinner elsewhere. WhiIst I don't know of all the circumstances, it strikes me as an outrage that, just because an immigrant group happened to have supported a murderous destructive war against the majority of their own countrymen and countrywomen, they should presume to have the right to push around people who opposed that war in their host country, especially given that that view was shared by the majority in that host country.[back]

Some Key Documents

Is it reactionary to oppose Immigration? 16 Dec 08 - also on Web Diary

Closing our borders can't mean turning our backs 25 Oct 07

American Unions and their about-face on Immigration 30 Sep 07

Book Review: Immigrants: your country needs them by Philippe Legrain 4 Oct 07

An immigration policy bought and paid for? 24 Feb 08

Bush's legacy 15 Oct 07

Triad of ecological ruin - The Royal Bank of Canada, Nature Conservancy and the Multicultural Industry 23 Jan 08

How does Chinese treatment of Tibet differ from treatment of native born Canadians?1 Apr 08

Which is the most idiotic Green Party in the world? 2 Feb 08

Iceland, the most peaceful country on earth 21 May 08

How illegal immigration into the US harms poor US Hispanic citizens 9 Oct 07

  

Topic: 

Comments

In the U.S. the "pull" factors have been legislated and thus can be unlegislated. Incentivizing illegal and legal immigration is the driving force behind this country's unprecedentedly rapid population growth exacerbating all resource depletion, ecological degradation and industrial unsustainability problems. Arizona recently began experiencing an exodus of illegals after it passed a law enforcing employer penalties. What must also be addressed is federal and many states's providing generous education, and welfare programs while not allowing police to even ask about immigration status. These factors incentivize ever-more illegal and legal immigration. This pull factor results in gaining millions who consume up to ten times what they did in their native countries.

Author and poet Mark O'Connor on "immigrationism":

(Thanks, J.M. for posting this. This has been turned into an article "Mark O'Connor on The ideology of 'immigrationism'". - JS, 10 Dec 08.)

Source (pdf 27K)

Read any newspaper of Sydney any day and any week and be aware of the overstretched pressures of the NSW Government to cope with escalating infrastructure needs of a swelling population - public transport, roads, healthcare, childcare, schools, universities, water reservoirs, housing, aged care, community services, etc.

What federal pledge to maximising immigration justifies its delegating unsustainable economic, social and environmental cost burdens upon the States, without compensatory funding? It's akin to the 18th Century British Goverment bombastially expecting Sydney's convict colony to take a flood of unwanted prisoners.

Open door migration without comensurate massive funding is reckless social policy. As in Europe, unsustainable immigration flooding has proven the key driver for overwhelming public services and infrastructure, exhausting available housing and employment, creating transport congestion, and exascerbating inequality and marginalising amongst the local disadvantaged (not to mention the ignored immigrant disadvantaged which the Federal government expects to magically fend for themselves).

From a humanitarian perspective, our fellow human beings, who migrate to support their families, continue to suffer at the hands of immigration policies that separate them from family members and drive them into remote parts of the American desert, sometimes to their deaths. This suffering should not continue.

Now is the time to address this pressing humanitarian issue which affects so many lives and undermines basic human dignity. Our society should no longer tolerate a status quo that perpetuates a permanent underclass of persons and benefits from their labor without offering them legal protections.

Earlier this month, Christian nurse Shirley Chaplin lost her appeal over a demand she remove the small cross she had worn around her neck throughout her 30-year nursing career. When she refused she was demoted to a desk job. On appeal an employment tribunal ruled that the health department was right to demand her 'jewellery' be removed as it could 'scratch patients'. Subsequently, the department ruled that Sikh nurses may wear bangles, and Muslim nurses exempted from the dress code mandating nurses wear short sleeves to help prevent the spread of hospital superbugs.

Many Britons are confused and troubled by the way their historic freedom to exercise their Christian belief is being eroded while minority rights are being advanced. Most Westerners simply don't appreciate that their freedoms are intrinsically linked to Judeo-Christian culture which itself is based upon a Biblical foundation. Judeo-Christian culture is a tree that grows out of Biblical soil and religious freedom is a fruit of that tree. Throughout history, whenever a community has stopped attending to its Biblical foundation, the culture has declined and its fruits have failed.

Erode the foundations and the tree eventually withers and dies as its roots cannot provide sustenance and stability. The only way to restore the fruits is to revive the culture. And the only way to revive the culture is to attend to the foundations. The post-Reformation Protestant culture of Christian liberty is so dynamic that unless that soil is right it will not be able to sustain or support it. Even when the soil is good, renewal of the plant through the restoration of its root system will only be possible through considerable struggle and long-term diligent care.

This is the situation facing the UK. Foundations long neglected are being both subversively eroded and openly demolished, for UK elites determined some time ago that evolution mandates a transition to a 'post-Christian' culture. Therefore renovations are in order. However, it is coming as a shock to many to learn that 'fruits' long taken for granted -- such as religious liberty, benevolence and 'manners' -- are withering and disappearing before their very eyes. It is also coming as a shock to many in the demolition crew that they do not have control of the situation.

The controversial Equality Bill -- which will challenge Christian consciences and criminalise Christian values -- completed its progression through the UK parliament on 6 April and now merely awaits Royal Assent to become law. Whilst many voices are declaring that the UK is already 'post-Christian', that is not the case. The UK is in transition.

Source: Elizabeth Kendal Religious Liberty Monitoring

Thank you for your comments, Elizabeth.

In my opinion, the authorities were correct in banning crucifixes if there was a health risk, but it was wrong not to ban the other practices if they presented similar health risks.

It is a question of priorities. To put religious liberty ahead of public health is poor prioritising. To then discriminate in favour of one religion over another, if that is what happened, generates unnecessary conflict as well endangering public health.

One can understand your indignation.

I would like to read further comments.

Copyright notice: Reproduction of this material is encouraged as long as the source is acknowledged.

Mrs Chaplin’s failed case echoes that of Nadia Eweida, who took British Airways to a tribunal over her refusal to remove the crucifix around her neck in 2006. In a long drawn out case, she finally lost her appeal in 2008.

The Equality Bill will "harmonise and in some cases extend existing discrimination law covering the 'protected characteristics' of age, disability, gender reassignment, marriage and civil partnership, pregnancy and maternity, race, religion or belief, sex, and sexual orientation. . ."

Human rights sound "good", and so does equality, but it is impossible to be value-free, as people inherently have their cultures and beliefs. These ultimately clash in a multi-cultural society unless new-comers are prepared to adapt to the mainstream culture.

The hospital had treated staff from ethnic minorities equally by ordering Sikhs to remove wrist bangles and Muslim doctors to switch to tight fitting sports hijabs.

Mrs Chaplin's case was highlighted by the Archbishop of Canterbury in his Easter sermon last weekend when he referred to "wooden-headed bureaucratic silliness" which had prevented some Christians from being able to wear religious symbols at work. However, the rules must be applied in a non-discriminatory way and not target Christian symbols.

Subject was: Truly it is a good example.

Truly it is a good example of how circumstances can force people to move from their place and position. I wonder if we can ever be secure that we will not be affected by our economic situation. Looking at it in another way, this event may present a new life, a new beginning and new opportunities in themselves.

Editorial Comment: This 'comment' demonstrates no comprehension, whatsoever, of the content of this article, which is highly critical of the global mass immigration rort of which, no doubt, nTRUST (Singapore) PTE (sic) LTD is a part. It's web-site, http://ntrust.com.sg is here, but be warned, particularly if your computer runs on the Micro$oft operating system, which is more vulnerable to viruses than are other operating systems, that the Web of Trust (www.mywot.com) warns, "This site has a poor reputation". It has poor trustworthiness, very poor vendor reliability and very poor privacy.

Nicolas Sarkozy of France and Silvio Berlusconi of Italy launched a joint effort to stem immigration and have demanded European deportation pacts with the countries of revolutionary north Africa to deny new arrivals. They are demanding an "in-depth revision" of European law regulating the passport-free travel that takes in almost all of the EU - with the exception of Britain and Ireland.

The Italian prime minister called the meeting after his decision to give more than 25,000 Tunisian refugees residence permits. The French president has responded furiously and criticised "flawed" EU rules that have let the migrants into France.

France has accused Italy of violating the EU's "Schengen" free movement rules by giving the Arab migrants permits and encouraging them to travel to France. French gendarmes have sent back Tunisian migrants trying to cross the frontier has been the visible symbol of growing acrimony between the two countries.

Italian Foreign Minister said there was no question of scrapping the principle of free circulation within the EU but the treaty needed a "check-up" revision. Thousands of Tunisians entered the EU via Lampedusa, a tiny island closer to Africa than to the Italian mainland. More than 4,000 boat-borne asylum seekers have arrived on the island, off the coast of Tunisia, in the past few days. France stopped a train carrying Tunisian immigrants from Italy at the French border, sending back those who could not support themselves financially.

The truth is the famine brewing in the Muslim countries is the best thing for Islam. It will prompt Muslims to move into Europe which will speed the Islamic takeover. These food riots going on in Muslim countries such as Egypt will bring Muslims to Europe. Revolutions are the easy part. It's what comes next that is hard to deal with.

Editorial comment: The statement, that the famines, made worse by the wars being waged in North Africa, somehow benefit the group of people being afflicted by the famines and war, namely Islamic North Africans, is hard to accept. Even if the humanitarian crisis causes European nations to relax their immigration restrictions and allow some Islamic North Africans to enter, it can't seriously be held that Islamic North Africans as a whole have gained.

Certainly, European nations, in particular Italy and France, should behave humanely towards the victims of this human tragedy. Whatever else can be said of their treatment of refugees from North Africa, the Governments of France and Italy have a right and a duty to act to prevent their own native populations from being demographically overwhelmed as a consequence. (end of editorial comment)