Mass Immigration: Undermining Australia's Way of Life
Our per capita wealth in the international system depends on Australia's ability to earn export income in excess of expenditure on imports, while maintaining a healthy manufacturing base.
Australia's exports are:
Our resources are only plentiful in relation to the present population. Like all industrial countries we are wasteful users of non-renewable resources such as oil, coal, and minerals. This use will increase with an increasing population, leaving us with less oil, coal, and minerals to export. Unless a large oil find occurs soon, we will be dependent upon importing oil, at great expense, for our expanding population.
- 44% agriculture and forestry
- 44% mining
- 12% other
There are limits to the volume that we can profitably sell in current world markets, and also to the length of time that these resources themselves will last. With soil degradation and erosion, our agricultural resources may diminish and, in fact, the additional millions of migrants will consume much of what otherwise would have been exported. This ultimately results in less export income.
Our increasing population has little effect on manufactured exports but does increase imports, consequently making us poorer as a nation.
Our per capita G.D.P. was the highest in the world in 1870 and even in 1950, when the mass immigration programme was getting into gear, our standard of living was very high. However, since that time, with our rapid population increase, our position has fallen dramatically and we, as a nation, have become poorer with an ever-escalating national debt. There is no foreseeable improvement likely in manufacturing to redress our national debt, and this situation leaves us economically vulnerable to foreign investors, who are currently buying our land, businesses, farms, and houses, and even building their own tourist developments on our land.
In 1986 Australia exported only $US65 per person of goods classified technological. This figure was lower than any of the O.E.C.D. countries, except Iceland. Surely the Government does not believe that our current migrant intake will improve our production of technological goods for export? In the past, migrants helped develop protected manufacturing industries selling to the domestic market. But it is now the Government's policy to reduce industry protection. The numbers employed in manufacturing are not increasing, nor are they likely to do so. What employment opportunities will there be for these extra migrants? With 10% of Australia's work force unemployed, to augment our labour pool through immigration is plain lunacy. Unemployment payments to recently arrived immigrants is already costing us billions of dollars.
Australian industries face real difficulties in competing overseas against low-wage, technically sophisticated, populous Asian countries, some of which are very protectionist in regards to their own industries. To expect Australia to compete successfully is being unrealistic. How can an Australian worker, earning a decent wage, economically compete with a worker in Asia who earns only a few dollars a day? Should we be paying our own workers similar slave labour style wages? No way!
Most immigrants to Australia will live in the major cities. They will generate extra economic activity there, especially in the construction of housing, roads, etc., but the capital channelled into these activities could be more productively employed in increasing investment in equipment, machinery, training, and jobs for the present Australian work force.
Australia's population has grown rapidly since World War Two and therefore the nation has had to invest in providing basic services for more and more people, rather than better services, education, and technical equipment for a stable population. Currently, we are not even adequately maintaining existing services. It is because of the lack of capital investment in technological equipment that labour productivity in Australia has grown at a lower rate than in Sweden, Germany, and Japan - not because of what the pro-immigration advocates say: that the Australian workers are lazy.
Pro-immigration politicians, businessmen, and bureaucrats are confidently telling us that immigration will economically benefit Australia; but this is untrue - and indeed the opposite applies: The larger the population, the lower shall be our standard of living.
What of the Government's Business Migration Programme? Until just before its demise, the Government and the Bureau of Immigration Research refused to admit to its deficiencies. How much money was channelled into real estate speculation, unwanted importing activities, unhealthy business practices and laundering of money, and activities of no benefit to Australia? The desire of Government, migrants, and the general community for easy money motivated the entire programme.
We should be self-reliant. Immigration reduces our capacity to be self-reliant, by adding pressure on natural resources and scarce investment capital which must increasingly come from international sources, hence escalating the already dangerously high levels of foreign ownership; which enables foreign influence, control, and manipulation of Australia - its people, economy, and government. We need to consolidate our skills and our investment capacity and not disperse our limited resources in trying to service needless growth.
After more than 40 years of mass migration, we are currently in a bigger mess than ever. If mass migration can work miracles - where are they?
THE ECONOMIC COST OF IMMIGRATION
Immigration costs us money. The ongoing costs of supporting our immigration programme in terms of housing, health services, waste disposal, education, welfare payments, unemployment benefits, and the necessity to continually expand the infrastructure to support growing cities, is an enormous financial burden on the existing community. Research puts the cost of the immigration programme at $15 billion annually.
Business Review Weekly, in October 1989, reported the Westpac bank as finding that our immigration programme actually adds approximately $9 billion per year to our foreign debt. Government estimates come to a similar conclusion (see Economics of Immigration: Who Benefits? by Stephen Joske of the Legislative Research Service's Economics and Commerce Group, September 1989).
Israel has experienced similar economic woes associated with her immigration programme and has had to try to raise $52 billion to cover the cost of one million Soviet Jewish immigrants.
In Australia the equivalent of a city the size of Geelong or Hobart, or one and a half Townsvilles, or two-thirds of a Canberra, must be built every year, with all the infrastructure to accommodate just one year's migrant intake. Governments are cutting their budgets already for these infrastructure services, finding the burden of ever-escalating costs too high.
To maintain our standard of living with the projected doubling of our population, we will need to have double the number of houses, schools, universities, hospitals, shops, factories, power plants, waste disposal systems, dams, sewage disposal mechanisms, and transport systems. In other words, re-build Australia within 40 years! Add to this the cost of social services: pensions, unemployment benefits, medical services, legal aid, child endowment, education expenses, and transport concessions.
To finance such a project will require immense capital borrowings, which we shall bequeath to our children in the form of a national debt that they shall never be able to overcome.
Mass Immigration: Undermining Australia's Way of Life
Australian Nationalism Information Database - www.ausnatinfo.angelfire.com/~natinfo