Australian Prime Minister John Howard on immigration

In the interview, Mr Howard was upbeat about the immigration program.

Australia crossed two immigrant thresholds in 2003-04, which is the latest year for which Bureau of Statistics tables are available.

The overseas-born population rose to 24per cent - its highest proportion since the 1890s. And the European share of the immigrant total fell below 50 per cent for the first time.

The previous Labor government of Paul Keating had the overseas-born at 23 per cent of the population, and the European component was 57 per cent.

Mr Howard seemed genuinely pleased when the numbers were read out to him.

“Really? I think what it demonstrates is that we have run a truly non-discriminatory immigration policy.”

After slashing immigration in his first term between 1996 and 1998, Mr Howard has steadily ratcheted up the intake to levels that now exceed those under Labor’s Bob Hawke in the 1980s.

As Opposition Leader in 1988, Mr Howard attacked Asian immigration. He has since apologised for the comment and conceded it cost him his job at the time.

His comment in August 1988 was: “I wouldn’t like to see it (the rate of Asian immigration) greater. I’m not in favour of going back to a White Australia policy. I do believe that if it is in the eyes of some in the community that it’s too great, it would be in our immediate-term interest and supporting of social cohesion if it were slowed down a little, so the capacity of the community to absorb it was greater.”

Mr Howard’s latest observations on Muslim culture are not in the same category, because they do not suggest the rate of Muslim immigration should be slowed down in the interests of social cohesion.

(emphasis added)

Link

Posted by Steve Edwards on Sunday, February 19, 2006 at 07:39 PM in Immigration
Comments (7) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Posted by JW Holliday on February 20, 2006, 07:14 AM | #

Mr. Howard should take a page from Peter Brimelow’s book and attempt to emigrate to some of the Asian nations currently prime sources of immigrants to Australia.

He may be in for a nasty surprise. Unidirectional immigration is global, inter-racial free-riding.

But , of course - of course! - free-riding just MUST only apply to the intra-racial case of “ethnic nepotism.” And don’t you even dare think otherwise.

Sarcasm aside, a very useful project for Salter and MacDonald would be a study of guys like Howard, Ray, Clinton, Bush, etc. as to why they are so eager to betray not only the interests of their co-ethnics, but are willing to trade for short-term proximate personal interests at the expense of long-term genetic personal interests and group cohesion

Posted by Steve Edwards on February 20, 2006, 09:14 AM | #

“Mr Howard seemed genuinely pleased when the numbers were read out to him.”

That’s the key here - it’s perfectly alright to express an ethnic preference...so long as it isn’t for the ethnic preferences of Europeans.

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on February 20, 2006, 10:14 PM | #

If my recollection of history is correct,most societies have been taken down by armed invasion.Those who have not fought for their culture have been metasized into the inbred cancer that now govern their lives.We White societies now live in an age where we have a choice to make-discard the multi-culti,"diverse",idioms of the leftist ididots;which is slowly taking over our government,our educational system,our Christian beliefs,and adherrence to established laws-or ,unifyAS WHITE PEOPLE,to defend our way of life-BY FORCE OF ARMS

Posted by Nick Tamiroff on February 20, 2006, 10:33 PM | #

correction to my post---should have said"and,unify AS WHITE PEOPLE,to defend our way of life-BY FORCE OF ARMS,if necessary!Either that,or we go the way of the Roman Empire!

Posted by Rosie on May 20, 2009, 11:39 PM | #

I certainly do not disagree with asian immigration or any immigration as a matter of fact however, i really think that countries should keep their culture. I live in Scotland and anyone who immigrates here should understand that we have a christian culture. If I immigrated to a muslim country I would be expected to stick by the laws that were introduced by muslim culture and would not expect them to change due to my culture or beliefs. Here a lot of schools have had to cut down on christmas and easter festivities as they are apparantly offensive to students of other religions, but our country has celebrated these festivals forever and why should we change now? Oh and apparantly I have to call a blackboard a chalkboard, absolutely ridiculous.

Posted by Michael Patterson on May 22, 2009, 12:36 AM | #

A “christian culture”? My backside. I’m an atheist and a proud English atheist at that. I detest “religious correctness at least as much as policitcal correctness.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on May 22, 2009, 01:24 AM | #

“I detest “religious correctness at least as much as political correctness.” (—Michael Patterson)

But you yourself are politically correct. Your comment in the other thread points to it. Why be what you yourself detest?

Next entry: Rhodesia

Previous entry: The neurodevelopmental boost of moms from childbirth

Existential Issues

Of note

General News

Science News

Science Categories

All Categories

The Writers

Each author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer; the hashes link to authors' homepages.

Links

Endorsement not implied.

Crime

General

Immigration

Islam

Jews

Nationalist Political Parties

New Right

Science

Whites in Africa