All migrants ultimately become the victims of mass migration. When will it stop?

See also: Latino Child Migrants Encouraged by Lax US Enforcement - Analyst (16 Aug 14) and Illegal Immigration Threatening US Citizens (4 Aug 14) on RiaNovosti.

There is talk of changing the Australian constitution to recognise Australian Aborigines and 'create a power for their advancement'. There is tragic irony in both this belated recognition and Australia's continuing extreme population growth. What right do successive Australian Governments have to impose a strategy of perpetual dispossession on an entire nation of people; regardless of their degree of Aboriginality?

"Recognition of Aborigines in Constitution 'a priority'", The Australian October 3 2013. In this article, Senator Brandis comments on how the Constitution should be altered to recognise indigenous Australians:

Senator Brandis said the Coalition would not ignore the recommendations made by the expert panel Labor established as part of the referendum process. The 22-member panel recommended that the Constitution be altered to remove racist sections and to create a power for the "advancement" of Aborigines and Torres Strait Islanders and the protection of their language and culture. It also called for a clause against racial discrimination.

"In the last parliament, the joint standing committee on constitutional recognition of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples did some very good work in that regard, but its work was by no means finished. That committee will have to be reconstituted as soon as the parliament resumes and the government will be looking to it to take up where the old committee left off and complete its work as a matter of priority."

I don't think anyone could disagree with this mark of respect for indigenous Australians. But there are ironies here related to all the major parties and their strategy of extreme population growth.

Some definitions of Aboriginal:

• A member of the indigenous people who were living in Australia when European settlers arrived
• An original inhabitant of a country or region who has been there from the earliest known times
• One of the original or earliest known inhabitants of a country or region.

In the context of Australia’s irrational, chaotic and undemocratic extreme population growth agenda, it is worth taking time to reflect on the ironies of human history in Australia.

In 1788, after having somewhat arrogantly claimed Australia in the name of the British Royalty, British migration began.

In reality this was an invasion. Soon conflict, disease and migration led to an increase in the numbers of predominantly Anglo Saxon migrants relative to Aboriginals. The cities, farms and economic development allowed the new migrants to assume control, but it was numbers that afforded real control. They were in the majority; and majority rules.

Were the Aboriginals Aboriginals when they arrived roughly 50,000+ years ago? Weren't they actually the first wave of human migration that we know about?

Now Australia has followed in the footsteps of the original Australians (ie the first migrants) with successive waves of migration. We now have what is called a migration based society similar to those of the USA and Canada; which arguably has no coherent basis apart from an economic model driven by greed and the rule of laws created and orchestrated by the invaders. But are second generation invaders invaders? Weren't the original "Aboriginals" also invaders? If the population stabilised for the next 50,000 years what would happen? Would we evolve into a new form of "mono-cultural" Aboriginal society? Isn't whether or not you know who were the "original or earliest known inhabitants of a country or region" a technicality? Isn't Aboriginality a relative term?

We aren’t going to last another 50,000 years because at the current rate of population growth there will be 1,286,784,546 million of us in just 1,000 years. My Excel spreadsheet can’t calculate the number in 50,000 years (I need a new version of........Excel Extreme).

The ironies of Australian Government in recent years include:

• The recent plan to pay respect to the Aborigines by recognising them as the original Australians in the constitution. Should the wording be revised to “Descendents of the Original Migrants”?
• The invasion of Australia in the name of British Royalty
• The respectfully recognised status of the Australian Aborigines based on their genes is somewhat similar to the basis for claiming Royal status and the right to invade Australia
• The question of who really is an Aboriginal and who isn’t. An Aboriginal born in Australia and anyone else born in Australia have both been here since their respective “earliest know times”, so what is the difference from a philosophical perspective?
• Should a new class of person be defined as a neo-Aboriginal to signify having been born in Australia or would that be racist?
• The guilt and remorse shared by many over the dispossession of the Australian Aborigines. Yet the Australian Government’s covert mass migration program continues that dispossession “by stealth and without consensus” to this day. All are affected. The Aboriginals, the "neo-Aboriginals", and the most recent arrivals. We are all equal and we are all being progressively dispossessed by Government Policy!

The question this really poses is what right do successive Australian Governments, supported by the criminal acts of the ABC propaganda machine, have to impose a strategy of perpetual dispossession on an entire nation of people?

And if this leads to economic, social and environmental decline in Australia, what greater good does it serve if it renders one of the few remaining environmental oases on the planet less able to provide philanthropic aid, both here and abroad, to those who need it most?

The answer is simple. Australia is a dysfunctional, unscientific, morally corrupt outpost of human civilisation driven by policies of hypocrisy and greed. The Greens and other so-called humanitarian and environmentally responsible NGOs appear driven by a deluded form of the same pro-growth extremism that drives the major political parties.

Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, Grow, Grow, Grow.
Aussie, Aussie, Aussie, No, No, No !

Please excuse this crass rhyme. Refinement is not required to point the finger at the moronic fantasy that is Australian Government, Australian Major Political Party and Australian Humanitarian & Environmental NGO, ethics. Moral principles require a rational foundation. Extreme Population Growth has no rational foundation if it is not subject to open, rational public policy debate that explores and substantiates that foundation.

Australia's Government, the ABC and most of the so-called humanitarian and environmentalist NGOs fully support unprincipled destruction of the environmental, social and economic fabric of Australian civilisation together with global crimes against humanity.

This is the greatest moral issue of our time. God save all Aboriginals, because the Government certainly has no intention of doing so.

Please sign this petition; thank you:

Australia requires a public inquiry to determine a basis for the optimum rate of population growth