Interactions between microbes and human hosts can range from a benign, even symbiotic collaboration to a competition that may turn fatal — resulting in death of the host, the microbe or both. What could seem benign could be a threat to existing host cultures.
Rome Scenario:
British Military strategist Rear Admiral Chris Parry pointed to the mass migration which disaster in the Third World could unleash. "The diaspora issue is one of my biggest current concerns," he said. "Globalisation makes assimilation seem redundant and old-fashioned due to the Internet and communications..." Europe, including Britain, could be undermined by large immigrant groups with little allegiance to their host countries — a "reverse colonisation" as Parry described it.
Parry stressed that these mass population movements could lead to the “Rome scenario” – a reference to the collapse of the western Roman empire in the 4th and 5th centuries under repeated blows from groups such as Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Suevi, Huns and Vandals surging over its borders.
"In my view," concluded historian Peter Heather, "it is impossible to escape the fact that the western Empire broke up because too many outside groups established themselves on its territories." In the end, the Roman Empire, built by controlled immigration, perished under an onslaught of uncontrollable barbarian migration.
Rear Admiral Parry went on to say he was not labelling any particular group as threatening stability , but observed that there were already more than 70 diaspora groups in Britain.
More white families are moving from London to the regions while many immigrants arrive in the capital from overseas, the think-tank
Migrationwatch says.
The change in 10 years has been "extraordinarily rapid'', with 606,000 more people moving out of London than arrived from elsewhere in the country. In the same period, a net 726,000 immigrants arrived in the capital.
The recent referendum in Switzerland that saw 57.5 per cent of the population voting to ban the construction of minarets. This is extreme tolerance considering Christians in many Muslim-background countries are being evacuated, persecuted and even martyred for refusing to conform.
Denmark now has a law preventing citizens under the age of 24 from securing residence rights for their foreign spouses. In September this year, the Flemish city of Antwerp joined France in banning the headscarf in schools. This is hardly "ethnic cleansing" or persecution but a protection of the host's skyline, religions and cultural identity.
Weapon of “racism”:
The weapon of choice for the political elite, against any members of the indigenous population who show dissent against loss of their homeland, is the charge of 'racism'. The pursuance of 'racism' as the ultimate taboo is the means to a political end. This is about changing the face of a nation.
The best estimate of the First Fleet, that we celebrate on Australia Day, is 1373 people. Today the numbers of permanent and long-term migrants arriving in Australia to more than 500,000 a year.
A 50 year 'visionary' migration plan for Australia is being developed to take into consideration such things as climate change, water availability, security and labour demands. There is nothing about preserving our identity, or assimilation, wildlife, or the greater challenges of climate change and the higher costs of living with more people here.
It is all so easy to come to Australia and apply to stay here. Students can do "post graduate" studies without having completed their first degree. Students numbers who successfully apply to live here are a hidden number.
Ad hoc population growth is colonisation:
Immigration Minister Chris Evans may have branded Mr Andrews as hypocritical in saying that our intake of migrants to Australia is too high when the Howard government welcomed more than 1 million migrants during its tenure. (#10;http://www.theage.com.au/national/andrews-call-for-debate-on-slashing-immigration-20091210-km93.html"> Andrews call for debate on slashing immigration, )
However, Kevin Rudd has increased the number of permanent and long-term migrants arriving in Australia to more than 500,000 a year! John Howard was Prime Minster from 1996 to 2007, and this means his government's increase happened over more than eleven years!
Australia is already under stress from population. We are losing Ramsar wetlands, record numbers of native species, even flagship species, our coastlines are under threat from oceans rising, the Great Barrier Reef, the Murray Darling food bowl and our rivers are being choked by dams and drying. The projections for Australia’s climate make it clear that farmers and other Australians should be prepared for a hotter, drier future. Higher temperatures, less rainfall, and extreme events will affect water availability, water and soil quality, fire risk, loss of wildlife and the proliferation of pests and weeds. Despite the warnings, food producing fertile land, is under threat from urban sprawl.
Ad hoc population growth, without a population policy or scientific assessment of our carrying capacity, is reckless and potentially disastrous!
In fact 'immigration', at Australia's rate of half a million new people a year, is an incorrect description for a process that is, to all intents and purpose, that of colonization.
Comments
Sheila Newman
Sat, 2009-12-12 15:14
Permalink
Bracks & Carr argue population numbers in Lateline
Tigerquoll
Tue, 2009-12-15 14:27
Permalink
Brack's 'populate or perish' basis is naive and narrow minded
Thank you Sheila, this interview is instructive in thrashing out the classic pros and cons on open door immigration policy. What is important is to focus on the key driver of the issue which is Immigration Policy, rather than the much broader and less distinct 'over-population' issue.
I think Carr's highlighting the problems with the current immigration rate and questioning the bases is a more sound approach. Bracks on the other hand is simply dragging up the old arguments to justify high immigration. Bracks 'populate or perish' basis is naive and narrow minded. This 1950s argument was always misconceived and is irrelevant today. It fails to take into account economic, social and environmental impacts nor does Bracks offer any need to measure those impacts. Bracks comes across as a representative puppet without disclosing who is pulling his strings.
Here is a summary of the main arguments pro and from the interview from what I could summise:
High Immigration - Pro Case (Steve Bracks)
* High immigration was seen as a positive by Australians post World War II, so this still holds true
* High immigration can be accommodated in higher density urban design to avert pressures of sprawl ('infil' argument)
* High immigration provides economies of scale for urban unfrastructure, such as enabling expensive fast rail to be viable, which would not be justified or efficient with a small population
* High immigration is good for Australia because it opens Australia up to the world and encourages greater multicultural diversity, which is considered desirable
* High immigration is good for the Australian economy because more people means more demand for goods and services, which is considered desirable
* Criticising high immigration policy is to be 'isolationist'
* Stress on the environment and natural resources is due to bad management, not high immigration per se
* Australia's community needs a better skills base in the long term. Only immigration fill the gaps in the skills base.
High Immigration - Con Case (Bob Carr)
* Immigration and population growth is not bad per se; it is the high unsustainable rate of immigration that is the problem
* High immigration may be accommodated in higher density urban design, but pressures on sprawl are not controllable and this is evident in all Australian capital cities
* High population exceeds Australian's carrying capacity (economic, social and environmental). By having no limit on population, we don't know what impacts this will cause. We have no target, which is irresponsible planning.
* High immigration is inversely proportional to the quality of life, as it increases our quality of life is decreased
* Ramping up the immigration rate is the most significant driver of planning, yet it is occurring without environmental impact statements or public consultation so government is allowing this planning without being mindful of the environmental consequences
* Pressure on water use by population growth has caused Australian major cities to have to spend billions on water desalination plants
* All problems are multiplied when one ramps up immigration. State governments have to provide the infrastructure to support this immigration
* We do not know the ultimate impacts of immigration on the environment. Immigration is not reversible.
* With the dependents that follow skilled migrants, this exacerbates the skills shortages too meet the increased demand
* It is a simple economic management view that immigration shows a quick surge in activity in housing and building shopping malls for instance, but it produces costs. High immigration only considers the total overall increase in economic activity, but ignores output per person.
Perhaps I have got some of these wrong, but the debate must continue no less.
Tiger Quoll
Snowy River 3885
Australia
Anonymous (not verified)
Mon, 2009-12-14 17:08
Permalink
The British in England are leaving.
Tigerquoll
Tue, 2009-12-15 12:46
Permalink
Uncontrolled immigration in UK not multicultural, but decultural
Like water naturally flows down hill, people will flow toward places that offer a better life if given the choice.
Australia attracts record immigrants because it still offers a better quality of life comparable to many other countries, otherwise people wouldn't chose to migrate to Australia. A similar attraction exists for the United Kingdom, except since Britain has been doing it for longer and has reached a population of 62 million and is struggling to cope, it is now arguably less attractive than Australia. With population saturation pressures, Britain's quality of life has been diluted. The natives now seek a better quality of life elsewhere. Those that can, emmigrate.
The UK official Office for National Statistics (ONS) in 2006 reported "an estimated 400,000 people left the UK for a year or more - up from 359,000 in 2005. This is the highest figure since the estimates began in 1991. Of those, just over half - 207,000 - were British citizens. Some 591,000 people arrived in the UK to live for a year or more. The previous highest was 586,000 in 2004. Net immigration was 191,000, some 53,000 lower than the record estimate of 244,000 in 2004. There were 316,000 more non-British citizens and 126,000 fewer British citizens in the UK." [Source: BBC, 2006, 'Record trends in UK migration']
These UK population statistics indicate a significant ethnic/cultural replacement occuring across the British demographic mix. It is a consequence of the British Labour Government open door policy on immigration.
The open flood gate arguments are classic ones according to UK Labour Government MPs:
* 'to plug gaps in the jobs market"
* to provide a positive fiscal impact because a greater proportion of migrants are of working age and migrants have higher average wages than natives.'
* 'to make Britain more multicultural and therefore have a positive effect on British culture'
* 'to enrich Britain'.
On 27th August 2009, BBC News reported in its article Population growth at 47-year high> the UK population is now growing by 0.7% every year (it grew by 408,000 in 2008) - the biggest increase for almost 50 years, according to the Office for National Statistics. There were 791,000 babies born in 2008, an increase of 33,000 on 2007 and half of that increase were to women born overseas, but living in the UK.
Labour MP Frank Field and Tory Nicholas Soames claim "There has been a lot of irresponsible scaremongering about immigration in recent years which was based on the false assumption that high migration was inevitable for years to come." "Even at the present level of immigration, we are still on target for the UK's population to exceed 70 million within 25 years," they said.
And anyone who dares criticise Labour's open-door immigration policy, like the opposition Tory conservatives, is automatically branded as 'playing the race card', or 'scaremongering', or 'xenophobic', or 'isolationist' or just 'out of touch'. For instance, in 2001 Tory leader William Hague accused by Labour as ''playing the race card' when he raised questions about immigration policy and accused PM Tony Blair of turning Britain into a 'foreign land'.
UK POPULATION INCREASE “OUT OF CONTROL”,
The Optimum Populatiion Trust on 21st October 2009, reported "The latest population projections for the UK show that population growth is out of control and highlight the urgent need for a national population policy.
The figures, published by the Office for National Statistics, show the UK population growing by over four million to 65.6 million by 2018, passing 70 million two decades from now (2029) and reaching nearly 86 million by the end of the projection period – 2083 – when growth will still be running at over a quarter of a million a year. The ONS says just over two-thirds of the projected increase over the next quarter century is either directly or indirectly due to migration."
Tiger Quoll
Snowy River 3885
Australia
Add comment