You are here

Immigration Stress - a consequence of excessive Economic Migrants

[Unemployment queues in the 1930s Depression in Australia, Source: AP]

Australia's immigration problem is the hundreds of thousands of economic migrants arriving at Sydney and Melbourne airports, not the few thousand asylum seekers arriving by boat.

If you want to know where the jobs, houses, hospital beds and education places have gone, look to the migrants taking them. This is the Immigration Stress created by too many foreigners granted the generosity of Australians. And look what has happened. Foreigners have got the benefits. 'Spot the Aussie' is now a rarity in Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane. Australians have been displaced. Urban property prices have forced many to leave the suburbs they have grown up and flee to the Central Coast (NSW), Mornington Peninsula (VIC) and Sunshine Coast (QLD). Economic migrants are not paying their way. They are sapping our limited public resources to the detriment of indigenous, ancestral and birth Australians. Australia's tax revenue is insufficient to pay for all extra demands imposed by millions of new economic migrants.

Yet Australia could generously triple its asylum seeker intake with hardly any noticeable impact on Australia's quality of life or standards of living. However, the Australian Government needs to start realising that accepting asylum seekers remains with each asylum case until people are assimilated into Australian society and have achieved a financial level of self-reliance. Immigration does not end when the bureaucrat stamps the residency visa. It is inhumane for the Australia Government to abandon vulnerable asylum seekers to let them fend for themselves. Full integration into Australian society can take years and cost hundreds of thousands in public infrastructure.

But while Australia has 600,000 homeless people and more in housing stress and unemployment, all the economic migrants can damn well wait. In Australian and indeed in any country, indigenous and locals have a birth and ancestral right to come first in the poverty safety net. The million or so economic migrants that successive Australian LibLab governments have allowed in over the past decade need to be integrated into Australian society. The socio-economic cost must be in the billions.

But Australia's social priority is Australia's own. The hundreds of thousands of under-privileged Australians should come before exacerbating the social cost problems with more from overseas. Australians deserve an adequate public safety net, before any more economic migrants should be allowed entry. Else Australia will continue to see its downgrading in social living standards and worsening local poverty.

If it's skilled workers Australian industry clamours for, where's industry's investment in local skills training? Where the so-called 'education revolution aligned to industry needs? Skilled immigration is a shortsighted stop gap. Skilled immigration causes social stress. It is a form of social displacement and invasion.

Image icon Dole Queues.jpg21.05 KB


I believe public anger about the asylum seeker boats has much to do with pay-to-enter persons aided by people smuggling personnel who will inevitably grow their businesses into an unstoppable industry - if the Australian government does not stop it as a matter of national interest.

All businesses expand at some stage. In the case of people smuggling, we are going to see bigger, more efficient boats that remove the "leaky boat" argument from the equation.

Visa over-stayers plan to disappear into their ethnic communities and are consequently very difficult to find. Although they are not paying people smugglers, I don't believe Australians are any less concerned about their illegality.

This is the shared conclusion of an Asian student living in Sydney :-

"Australians mad giving country away. Australia Asian country now. We take."

Think about it.

If any of you have been to Strathfield lately, you will understand what the student smugly told us.

I don't hear anyone bagging Japan for refusing "asylum seekers". They are unapologetic about protecting their culture, race and country from outside influences.

Clearly Joan in her comment above is either ignorant or just another misguided lemming* following the media spin about asylum seekers as if their less than 1% of immigration was serious.

If Joan cared to read my opening paragraph she may get the message that economic migrants comprised the 99% immigration problem. The facts are 99% of Australia's immigrants are economic migrants arriving by plane to mainly Melbourne and Sydney. If the media started filming this flood perhaps slower members of the public may start realising this is the real problem.

The issue has nothing to do with the few thousand people fleeing persecution and civil conflict. The asylum seeker issue is one of regional conflict. It is an humanitarian issue of the countries concerned. That people are forced to flee is a consequence of UNHCR neglect and failure to resolve and contain the problem within the countries concerned. The consequence is that the people themselves are given little choice but to flee and so the problem is handballed.

Australia's excessive immigration problem on the other is one of successive LibLab government active policy of selling Australian jobs to foreigners with economic means. Economic migrants continue to arrive in droves by plane at the invitation of LibLab governments in order to reap Australia's socio-economic wealth. Economic migrants are indeed those who have immense choice and they are exercising it at the expense of local Australians.

No more obvious is migrant displacement of Australians in the workplace than in government jobs. The public service is dominated by economic migrants. Yours truly has been on the receiving end of this displacement. Joan cites Strathfield, but look at Parramatta, Sydney's ethnic work hub, where the NSW Government is progressively transferring its many departments. Parramatta has become the migrant capital for well paid public service jobs.

*The "lemming suicide plunge' was first espoused in a 1958 Walt Disney movie, 'Wild Wilderness' showing lemmings mass suiciding off a cliff. While the origins of the myth are false, the myth has useful application. People that unquestioningly follow and believe what the read and see in the media may be likened to the lemming suicide plunge myth. Joan needs to question her lemming tendencies.

According to the UN, refugees are those who cannot stay in their own country, for safety reasons, because of their political, social, religious and ethnic origins. There are predicted to be millions of environmental, or climate change, "refugees" in the future as the present threats on our planet converge. However, just how many of these will be due to overpopulation and the consequences of consuming environmental resources and ecological degradation?
There will be consequences of climate change that will make areas less inhabitable, but with sensible planning, reforestation, and reduction of emissions, steps can be taken to reduce its impacts.
Australia has limited fertile soils and limited water supplies. With our cities already becoming unsustainably obese, housing unaffordable, and over-crowded, we in Australia have little capacity to accommodate millions of asylum seekers.
However, what we can do is help developing nations live sustainably, grow organic crops and make family planning accessible and socially acceptable.
With all the political attention on "border security" and the "threat" of asylum seekers, it conveniently takes the heat away from economic immigration!
We need some border security to stem the tide of economic/climate change/overpopulation refugees, but first the flow should be avoided by addressing the source - living sustainably, addressing greenhouse gas emissions, and limiting the blow-out of our global population growth! Ignoring it will not make it disappear!

It is ungracious to dismiss an opinion or expression of personal experience as ignorant because it differs in some way from others. In attacking the intelligence of a sincere, non-troublesome contributor to this forum, a disservice is done to the general discussion. Mr Marlowe I think you write very well but please note, I am sufficiently intelligent to express my own thoughts and do not appreciate your footnote because your assumption is quite wrong.

The idea that people who express alternative opinions are lemmings "following media spin" is a smarty-pants put-down, a type of demeaning intellectual snobbery that is particularly unpleasant, especially from a man to a woman.

Joan, back to the issue, since commenters are just players..
Why waste effort on 1% of the immigration problem?
Why criticise my argument as an "assumption" without clarity or counter argument?
If you are taking personal offence, get back to the issue!

I was tolerant of immigration when Australia had 17 million. Another 5 or 6 million later, any tolerance has worn off completely!

While we have local poverty, economic immigration is criminal invasion!

You write much better than you interpret meaning Mr Marlowe.

Your assumption that a contributor to this forum is not only ignorant, but a lemming who "needs" to follow your advice (with your footnoted explanation of lemming) is disrespectful.

I appreciate your views, mostly thinking along similar lines to yourself. Try to be courteous. There's no need to drive harmless people away from Mr Sinnamon's forum with unnecessary personal attack.

Thank you.

Dear Joan,

My response to your first comment 'Immigration' [2nd August 2010] was not intended as a personal attack. If you took it as such I apologise to you. I see no need for personal agendas to distract from any issue. What does ego have to gain in any issue debate?

It is what you wrote that I criticised, particularly since it conveys a mainstream perspective which is misguided - that asylum seekers comprise anything more than a minuscule contribution to Australia's immigration largesse. Read my response again!

In your comment you highlighted both the tired over-hyped people smuggling issue and about Visa over-stayers. These issues are so unimportant as a proportion of the immigration numbers. They comprise less than 1% of the overall problem, so why waste time focusing on it and by distracting others from the real 99% problem of Australia's Economic Migrants?

Such sub-issue red herrings only play into the distractive political agenda of LibLabs and their selfish growthist agenda.

Check your facts and if you can't handle criticism of your argument, stick to the issue.

Public commentators (including us bloggers) must take criticism if they dish it. Criticism my argument all you want, but keep to the issue.

Whilst the threat of legal economic migrants to our sovereignty is vastly greater than that posed by illegal immigrants, an important principal is at stake in the latter issue. An immigration system must be based upon fairness to all those who wish to be citizens. To discriminate in favour of those prepared to pay large fees to people smugglers against those who are unable to pay can only make our immigration system less fair in the longer term.

Even though Prime Minister Gillard may seem to be less focussed on the former problem than we think she should be, I think she is nevertheless correct to try to ensure that paying people smugglers should not be a means to obtain citizenship.

I also think that we should accept that not all who disagree with some of what we think are necessarily doing so for the wrong motives. - JS

To spend more than 1% of time on people smuggling, while 99% of the problem are checking legally through customs at Sydney, Melbourne and Brisbane airports may sound a worthy principle, but this is naive denial.

The boat people issue is the biggest LibLab distractive con of the 21st Century to date and all the voters seem to be hoodwinked. What cullable fools Australians are for not seeing the economic migrant elephant in the room!

To focus on the 1% asylum seekers is to try to build sand castles while the economic migrant tide is coming in. Wake up!

Your employment is at risk. These immigrants have more qualifications that you can poke a stick at!

There are many privileges in becoming an Australian citizens. The following are the only obligations:

  • Pledge loyalty to Australia and its people;
  • Share in Australia’s democratic beliefs;
  • Respect other Australian citizens’ rights and liberties; and
  • Uphold and obey the laws of Australia.

New citizens should be under probation. Car drivers must be under probation for 3 years, so Citizenship also should be, and the impacts of not complying with these few obligations could be more wide and perverse than breaking those of a probationary driver. Any abuse of our generous welfare system should immediately mean a revoking of citizenship.

People accepting Australian citizenship should deny citizenship to any other country when their probationary is over. Any indications that immigrants commit crimes, try an impose another type of government (such as sharia law) or who directly challenge our ideals should be deported.
Citizenship to Australia should not come cheap and easy!

Damn bloody right!
LibLabs sell Australian citizenship like they sell Aussie assets!

Look at foreign ownership of corporations, natural resources, property across Australia!

Citizenship in Australia and indeed any country is a privilege with moral and legal obligations accepted by foreigners into their new host country and its people.

But breach those obligations and foreigners must show cause to otherwise forgo their citizenship rights.

Yet LibLabs sell Australian citizenship like they sell Aussie assets.

Why are foreigners rejecting assimilation in Australia?
Why are foreigners allowed to perpetuate ghettos like the Jews do in St Ives, the Pacific Islanders do in Logan, the Lebanese do in Lakemba, the Indians do in Harris Park, the Vietnamese do in Springvale and Richmond?

Australia's national language is English, so why are these foreigners permitted non-English shop signage and to overwhelm areas with their high concentration of numbers?

Why are foreigners taking up space in Australian gaols?

LibLabs sell Australian citizenship like they sell Aussie assets
Look at the number of foreigners branch-stacked into MP appointments!

NSW Lower House

NSW Upper House

Vic Lower & Upper Houses

QLD Legislative Assembly

[Queensland has no Upper House]

Immigrant influence and political power only grows and increasingly dominates as more arrive and assert and impose their own cultures.

There are a lot of "racist" accusations going around, targeting Australians! Ironically, we are one of the most tolerant nations in the world. There are some bigots here, but when we are accused of racism, which "race" or ethnic group are they talking about? We are so multicultural that we almost have no real authentic identity any more.

Many people coming here point the finger, and inspect and criticize our attitudes and policies with a fine-tooth comb, but they should first look at where they come from themselves.

After years of multiculturalism, mass immigration and globalisation, people seem to think they have a right to come here and criticise our society and laws while in their own countries there are exclusion to other nations, ethnic wars, mono-cultures, dictatorships, theocracies, overpopulation and degrading conditions.

We need to appreciate our wide open spaces, our vast and empty (but mainly uninhabitable) lands, our many wonderful coastlines, our unique history and heritage, and Jewelled seas. How many people have actually considered our indigenous peoples and what they think of our neo-colonialism?

Why do people always assume that "vacant" land without housing estates and roads is wasted and should be filled with developments?

Clearly our government has touted Australia as a safe and egalitarian, tolerant society. The attacks on Indian students have embarrassed our governments and revealed the rising violence and crime in our cities.

That Australia is "racist" accusation is another population myth, or method of manipulating the public into silence regarding mass immigration and population growth.

Australians are a tolerant mix of people, perhaps no more so than indigenous Australians who have put up with wave after wave of immigrants.

The term 'racist' is an ugly slur readily being used by anyone who seeks to put down criticism for the negatives of successive government immigration policy.

To be racist is to be prejudiced against a specific racial group or multiple racial groups. Australia is such a mix of races that it would be illogical to use the term without attracting criticism of one's self.

But the main immigration problem in Australia is not about racism or specific racial groups. It is simple a local response to the sheer numbers of people arriving over a short period of time, to the point where the society, economy and environment are not coping and are where locals are witnessing serious negative impacts. It matters not from where they come, but their impact on local society.

It is also a problem of some immigrants rejecting Australian societal values and unjustly seeking to impose their own values on Australians. This is exacerbating the social tensions.

The two problems are collectively about injustice faced by local Australians.
Of course the local reactions vary from tolerance to intolerance and there are some racists out there like in every society, but they are in the minority.

However, the real problem being created by successive LibLab governments and their encouraged excessive waves of mass immigration, is that immigration is being imposed on local society at an unsustainable rate, and the vital importance of assimilation and society cohesion has been tragically abandonned by government. This has created local resentment and antagonism. It has also meant many immigrants are unjustly left to fend for themselves. It is regrettably fueling racism.

The perpetuating problem is shortsighted government economic-centric policy and abandonment of social responsibility.

Multiculturalism is a euphemism for governments saving money by abandoning new immigrants to fend for themselves. Naturally, anyone left to fend for themselves will turn to their own kind and become insular in their own ethic group.
Hence, government abandonment has created ethnic enclaves. Immigrants are not encouraged to assimilate as 'new Australians' into Australian society, but to perpetuate satellite enclaves of their old countries.

It takes generations to assimilate. Look at the Mediterranean immigrants post WWII! It took Australian mainstream up until the 1980s, some 30 odd years later the third generation of Mediterranean immigrants (mainly Greeks and Italians) to be embraced as an non-distinguishable integrated component of the mainstream Australian community. We went from the TV culture of 'Kingswood Country' in the 1970s to 'Acropolis Now' in the late 1980s.

Social change simple takes time. It is a human condition that cannot be forced and fast tracked.

(This comment has been republished as an article, due to the comment thread repeatedly wandering away from the core subject of 'Economic Mirgants').

A Perth Muslim woman wants a judge to decide whether she can wear a burka while giving evidence. Tasneem, who did not want her last name published, said she had worn the burka for about 20 years and it would be uncomfortable to take it off in front of men she did not know while in the witness box.

This absurd case confronts us today and is the result of non-conforming immigrants. Before coming to Australia, they should be willing to bend and accept Australian law and customs, and while we are a tolerant society, our tolerance should not be abused. We tolerate diversity and multiculturalism, but she is trying to push the boundaries even further.

Under sharia law, how would this woman fare? She would have few rights and draconian justice!
Women have fought hard for equality in the West, for the right to vote, to be educated, to wear comfortable clothing rather than tight girdles and long gowns, and to be equal in society. These cultures are backward and repressive, and confronting. People coming to live in Australia need to accept our laws and customs and adapt. They should adapt to Australia, not US to THEM!
She should be treated like anyone else and bare her face in court!

I've heard we need to emulate the Canadian "immigration miracle" or we will become economically moribund like those backward European countries.

Here is the evidence for that argument:

The foundation for global governance is the belief that the world is now ready to accept a "global civic ethic" based on "a set of core values that can unite people of all cultural, political, religious, or philosophical backgrounds."

The sole reason to have mass immigration is to have other nations mingled in with white people is to cause disunity.

Immigration is forced upon Australia by the United Nations.

The UN is sowing the seeds into all the white nations to bring in the one world government. This will restrict the white people from rising up as there cannot be unity within the different nations populating Australia.

Iron and clay cannot mix. Multiculturalism is about all the foreigners hold fast to their language and also refusing to learn English. Democracy will be limited as the larger number of foreigners who will have the greater say.

It's all about control and the white nations will inevitability lose it. America is militarizing the police for what is coming. Australia is trying but don't have the resources,

We have to be politically correct don't we. We have already been assaulted by many population myths, to manipulate us into silence. Where does patriotism end and tolerance to invasion by stealth begin?

The subtle language in many UN documents hides the assault on national sovereignty. While sounding affirmative, it undermines any "sovereign" action that might oppose UN policies. But Article 29 states that "these rights and freedoms may in no case be exercised contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations." In other words, its promise of "human rights" does not apply to those who would criticize the UN or its policies. Nor does it apply to Christians who cling to God's "offensive" truths -- or refuse to follow UNESCO.

The migration issue shifts national sovereignty onto the same slippery ground.

Clearly, the New World Order is a business and economic order. But it is a business order that fleeced the American people in the ponzi loan scheme. On the surface, the NWO looks benign, just bringing countries together in free trade. However, one world government is not benign, and has proven itself to be far from benign. After all, the ponzi housing scheme and the subsequent credit crisis caused a huge transfer of wealth to be shifted from the middle classes to the world's wealthiest people.

Mass immigration is a denial of the rights of the people in the existing community regardless of their racial origin and regardless of the racial origin of the immigrants.

At other times in history, people other than Europeans have similarly sufferred as a result of mass immigration. This fact doesn't justify the way predominantly European inhabitants of countries like Australia are now being treated little better than people in other societies that suffered mass immigration in previous centuries as part of the process of colonisation.

Quite right James. "Mass immigration is a denial of the rights of the people in the existing community regardless of their racial origin and regardless of the racial origin of the immigrants."

In response to Milly, yes, the UNHCR aims to promote "human rights" but does a crap job. It has a despicable record of failure (Rwanda in 1994), slow response (Bosnia 1992 to 1995, North Pakistan right now!), turning a blind eye (Burma, North Korea, Sudan, Zimbabwe, Kyrgyzstan) and complicity in persecution (Palestine, Sri Lanka). [Read More]

Utopian ideals like "the belief that the world is now ready to accept a "global civic ethic" based on "a set of core values that can unite people of all cultural, political, religious, or philosophical backgrounds" is also crap.

Many cultures are morally mutually exclusive. Female cultural equality in Australia is incompatible with female oppression and persecution in Saudi Arabia and Sudan for instance. Unrestricted mingling is a consequence of socio-political problem avoidance. Civil unrest in a country is allowed to remain unresolved and to fester and build until civil war breaks out, then the populous flees to another country. The ruling powers argue for international intervention to stay out for reasons of it being a matter of its 'internal affairs'. Yet refugees then become external affairs. The socio-political problem is geographically shifted instead of being contained within the country.

I am not an international citizen. I am Australian. When I work hard, build a house and a comfortable lifestyle, it is not up for grabs by others. Those lucky to have a choice certainly should help others that don't have choices, but not give up their homes in the process.

Utopian and business ideals are imposed on populations without considering the nature and willingness of the human species, and by considering them a simply a resource, like livestock, to manipulate, impose upon, and expect them to comply.

We have business pro-growth groups, with bipartisan support from political parties, who want continual population growth, without considering our fragile and limited environment, without considering that the great majority do not want higher density living and larger cities, and without considering the social and financial impacts.
There are mega cities in the world, with sprawling tentacles across their landscape, however, those that are successful have highly monolithic cultures and homogeneous populations. Cities such as Hong Kong, Singapore and in Japan are monocultures.

Our leaders, supported by these pro-growth businesses, want high density populations as well as multi-culturalism.

The ideals imposed on populations by the UN (non discrimination and human rights) look Utopian, but they hide wider agendas and ignore the limitations and the psychology of humans groups.

We read of increasing violence and crimes in our cities, and "racist" attacks. The stresses of coping with a divided society, and ramped population growth, show that our society is stressed to the core.

Human groups are far more complex, and have many more needs and dimensions than the simple requirements of livestock that can simply added to paddocks. However, overstocking paddocks will have negative impacts too, and negative returns.

I notice that you used a photo of 1930s Dole Queue because today the unemployed and casually employed don't congregate to look for work any more, they wait at home by their mobile phone for a call out. These casual employees are largely invisible to society, although they are found in every work situation. Mt Thorley coal mine in the Hunter Valley employs casuals, shop assistants are usually casual. Casual workers are at least 10% of all teachers in Victorian classrooms on any day but they are invisible because they dress the same as permanents and perform the same work as permanents.

Editor: This comment will lead you to a Singapore site that markets immigration to Australia, using articles from our major newspapers.

The actual comment was "Some will require a job offer in regional Australia. In other words some people will have fewer immigration hurdles to overcome than others."

We take it that this site is encouraging people to apply as if they intended to live in regional Australia in order to have a better chance at permanent visas.

Just publishing this very misplaced comment for educational purposes about how our media are used to pump up Australia's immigration rate and how there are internet sites all over the place recruiting more immigrants.

We need some sites that tell potential immigrants that we are overpopulated and that the government and corporate sector and media are advertising for immigrants against the will of citizens.