Immigration policy challenges in Australia

“The poem of William Blake, which speaks of the worm in the rose, is applicable to Australia today, where presently the greatest threat to the future security of the country comes from within, not from without. One cannot be sure what the future may bring, but at present there is no military threat to Australia. Indonesia is a mere paper tiger, and China is occupied with other matters and will be for many decades in the future. But unfortunately in Australia there are a number of active and influential groups which work persistently against national security. The most important of these groups presently are those who do nothing to encourage the entry of European immigrants but who press for the admission of large numbers of Middle Eastern, and especially Moslem, immigrants instead.

These groups, which range from the Uniting Church to Amnesty Australia and substantial sections of the Labor Party, are properly described as left-liberal. They are quick to seize upon any fact that may tend to discredit Australia’s mandatory detention of illegal immigrants (such as the recent detention of one Cornelia Rau, who, suffering from mental illness, gave the authorities the false name of Anna Schmidt and claimed to be an illegal immigrant, and was detained accordingly; and the case was exaggerated by left-liberals in the media in order to attack the government of Mr. Howard).

The allowing into Australia of large numbers of Moslems is contrary to Australia’s security. Moslem groups within Australia have not integrated, and show no intention of doing so. On the contrary, they remain separate from the rest of the population, and are in the process of expanding a network of Islamic schools, where Moslem children will be brought up separately.

It is objected by left-liberal groups that not to allow free entry to Moslems is “racist”. If that were an appropriate description, it should not intimidate Australia into admitting inappropriate immigrants. But it is not an appropriate description. The desirability of excluding Moslems is a function of religion and culture, not a function of race.

Every country has the right, and indeed the duty to its own citizens, to give preference to those immigrants whose culture will permit satisfactory assimilation. The dangers of the contrary course – that preferred by leftliberals of deliberately preferring those who are least likely to assimilate – is already having troublesome effects in Europe. There has been increasing concern amongst the non- Moslem populations of France, Belgium, The Netherlands and England inter alia at the assertive actions of Moslem minorities. In some countries violence has already broken out. There is a fear of offending Moslems. For example, on 2 November 2004 Theo van Gogh (a Dutch filmmaker who had criticized Moslems) was dragged from his bicycle and killed by an Islamic radical: he was shot six times and then, as he pleaded for his life, his throat was slit through his spinal column, almost decapitating him. Moslems have attacked the Dutch police with grenades and gunfire, and recently more than twenty churches and mosques have been attacked as religious tensions have grown.

In Belgium likewise religious hatred has become evident through Moslem assertiveness. The reaction of left-liberals has been, typically, to punish those who express concern at the rising Moslem population. A Belgian political party, the Vlaams Blok — indeed, Belgium’s largest political party — has been declared a criminal organisation and banned in 2004 because its opposition to Muslim immigration was held to be contrary to “anti-racism” legislation passed in 1999.

The banning of a political party opposed to Moslem immigration is a salient example of the lengths to which left-liberals go in order to de-stabilise Western societies. It is significant that “anti-discrimination” legislation is already being used in Australia to stifle dissent and intelligent debate.

In Australia this grouping promotes the following causes: the immigration of Moslems and other groups least likely to assimilate; the encouragement of illegal immigrants; the vilification of ordinary Australians by distorting the history of the treatment of Aboriginals; the building up of the powers of the United Nations and its associated organisations and the diminution of Australian sovereignty; the abolition of a stable constitutional monarchy and its replacement by a republic that would provide greater opportunities for radical changes; the deterioration of the educational system, with a deliberate lowering of standards and an increased emphasis upon left-liberal political correctness; and, generally, any other cause that serves to undermine Australia’s security and its Western culture.

The protestations of these left-liberal groupings represent that they are moved by “idealistic”, “public-spirited” or “compassionate” considerations. But this is not correct. An analysis of the writings of such typical members of these groups as Robert Manne, supports the view that they are activated by destructive purposes, and particularly by a desire to attack normal Australians, the “status quo” and Western culture. Generally unseemly personal motivations lie behind, such as a resentment arising from a belief that the declaimant has not been properly recognised, does not have the status or financial assets that he seeks or is not socially successful.

It is a truism that these left-liberal decompositors are united by an intense hatred of the Prime Minister, Mr. John Howard. There can be no better proof Mr. Howard’s policies on these issues are essentially correct”.

http://www.nationalobserver.net/2005_autumn_ed1.htm

Posted by jonjayray on Sunday, August 14, 2005 at 07:05 AM in Immigration
Comments (5) | Tell a friend

Comments:

Next entry: Liberal Cities, or Black Cities?

Previous entry: War, virtual reality and the ANC