You are here

Migration intake fuels Asylum Seeker conflict - Kelvin Thomson

Wednesday 21st December 2011 - press release from Kelvin Thomson, MP.
You can reply here and you can reply on Mr Thomson's blog.

Australian Bureau of Statistics figures show that, with the exception of Singapore, during the last 5 years Australia ran far and away the biggest per capita migration program in the world – 11.1 migrants per thousand people per year. After us came Italy, with 6.7, Canada 6.6, Sweden 5.8, Hong Kong 5.1, the United States and the United Kingdom 3.3, and New Zealand 3.1. In fact we could cut our migration program to 74,000, rather than 174,000, and we’d still be running one of the biggest per capita programs in the world – as big as the UK, Italy and Sweden, and bigger than the US and New Zealand.

I believe the Australian people are instinctively generous and good-hearted, but their tolerance has been stretched to breaking point by the quadrupling of the skilled migration program over the past 15 years, which has generated competition for jobs and housing and put pressure on family living standards.

As a consequence the debate about asylum seekers is very divisive. It is doing nothing for our sense of national unity and respect for each other.

We should not expect the Australian people to accept an increase in the refugee intake in isolation. It should be part of a package where skilled migration is cut by 50,000. There are many good reasons to cut our migration program, and one of them is that it is likely to lift public support for an increased refugee program, which I think it’s something we have to bring to the table when we are working with our regional neighbours on the asylum seeker issue. Furthermore the Australian people have said over and over that they think our migration level is too high, so cutting our massive migration rate is giving the Australian people what they want.

In fact we could cut our migration program to 74,000, rather than 174,000, and we’d still be running one of the biggest per capita programs in the world – as big as the UK, Italy and Sweden, and bigger than the US and New Zealand.

Image icon airport-arrivals2.jpg45.85 KB
Image icon airport-arrivals2-tiny.jpg26.72 KB


One of the reasons for high immigration which fuels the Government promoted and taxpayer funded policy of multiculturalism is the erosion of our heritage, history and Western culture. In recent years, Asian immigration into Australia has expanded to make up 40-60% of yearly intakes. Paul Keating in 1995 said: cultural-demographic integration was to be achieved by promoting the new state religion of multiculturalism, facilitating Asian immigration into Australia, using Australia's high quality (but under-funded) educational system to attract fee-paying foreign students, teaching Asian studies and languages in Australian schools and universities, and fostering cultural exchanges between Australia and East Asian countries. The discrimination is in favour of Asian immigrants and on the acceptance into our universities of large numbers of foreign students from Asia. Most multiculturalists are internationalists so that Australia's interests may have to be over-ridden by so-called international interests.

How many fellow Australians do you know, who are enrolled and studying at a University in any of the countries, from which foreign students enrolling in Australian Universities, come?

I don't know of one.

I would be interested to see the statistics, perhaps in the 2011 Census results are published. Perhaps some are to be found in the 2006 Census. I somehow doubt that the two sets numbers are even remotely comparable.

Is it possible to imagine that Australian Universities are that much better than Universities from those countries?

Or are foreign students, prepared to pay up-front fees that fewer and fewer Australians are able to pay, also getting something else that the Australian government and its corporatised tertiary education sector aren't being up-front with the rest of us about?

Are foreign students, being offered citizenship and careers that were previously given, as a matter of course, by the Government and business sectors, to young Australians, but which are now denied to them in our now highly credentialised job market?

How could former Prime Minister Paul Keating, who did not even complete Year 12, have stood a chance if he were to have started out his career in the Australia of 2011 that he helped to create?

The Australian Tertiary Education 'industry', of which former Prime Minister Keating boasted so much in the promotion of his recent tome "Afterwords" is yet another scam that is being used to enrich a few at the expense of the rest of Australia and future generations.

George Megalogenis, Migrants claim bulk of the jobs, The Australian, 11 January 2012

"MIGRANTS are officially more employable than Australian-born jobseekers, claiming 81,000 new jobs over the past year while 38,000 locals lost their own jobs.

The British, Malaysians and Filipinos are the main immigrant groups that enjoy lower unemployment rates, while New Zealanders and Indians have higher labour force participation rates than the Australian-born.

A detailed analysis of the Bureau of Statistics jobs data shows that while immigrants account for less than 30 per cent of the labour force, they have claimed more than half the jobs created since the start of 2010.

Rather than struggling to fit in, as opposition citizenship spokeswoman Teresa Gambaro suggests, newly arrived immigrants are going straight to work and helping keep the economy growing. The figures for November, which are not seasonally adjusted, place the unemployment rate for Australian-born at 5 per cent and the overseas-born at 4.8 per cent."

My comment: I bet they are being paid less than Australians. This is a race to the bottom. And the Murdoch press has a big responsibility for high immigration and the destruction of our industrial protection laws by encouraging Mr Howard.

Migrants are more employable than Australian-born job seekers, because they have lower expectations - income, workplace conditions, treatment - these are typically lower standards overseas from whence they came than in Australia.

Migrants are more desperate to get work because they have less choice than locals - less access to a network of support and perhaps no access to unemployment benefits (below the breadline as they are). So migrants get the jobs because they are cheaper workers and accept more crap in the workplace.

As a consequence, employers know they can save on labour costs and have less effort to retain migrants instead of locals. The workplace becomes dominated by cheaper foreign labour that expects less. The workplace is thus dumbed down. The quality is also dumbed down. But then corporate and government employers are focused on the short term, so in the short term they benefit. In the long term the country is dumbed down.

Suggan Buggan
Snowy River Region
Victoria 3885