Mass Immigration: Undermining Australia's Way of Life
Introduction
An increasing problem for Australia is its excessive population growth, predominantly resulting from mass immigration. Australia's immigration policy is disastrous, proceeding as if there is no social ill-effects, no concern for destroying our national identity and culture, no balance of payments problem, no national debt, and no geographical or environmental constraints to population growth. Continued mass immigration will finally and irreversibly destroy the identity and culture of our nation, alter the natural and urban environment, and undermine Australia's economic viability.
This document sets out and explains our beliefs with respect to past and present immigration policies and their effects on:
Culture
The environment - natural, rural, and urban
The economy
Defence
Humanitarianism
Health
Education
We believe that for Australia large-scale immigration played a role in its early days, but it is now a concept whose time has totally passed. Public opinion polls consistently show that the majority want immigration drastically reduced. Many people want a complete cessation. But Government and Opposition politicians maintain high immigration policies.
Our aim is to dismantle the entire immigration programme, allowing entry of assimilable European persons for settlement into Australia only under individual circumstances.
In the past, our immigration policies have been promoted on the basis of fear and self-interest, as witnessed in the concepts of:
Populate or perish
Economic failure of small nations
Ageing of the Australian population
International ramifications
The first three arguments have been shown to be unsound and have, in the main, been dropped by the pro-immigration lobby. We now have a policy heavily promoted by the ethnic lobbies and supported by big business, both of whom see Australia as an empty land of plenty, waiting for population growth and exploitation. To these groups the nation's historical culture and identity means nothing, and they have no understanding of, or interest in, Australia's fragile environment.
Immigration is of perceived benefit to the following groups in our community:
Big business, including the media, finance companies, retailers, and land speculators.
The housing industry.
Protected industries in domestic markets.
Ethnic lobby groups.
New migrants.
Immigration is to the disadvantage of:
Australian wage earners competing for jobs, as wages decrease with an increased labour pool and rise in unemployment.
School/University leavers, where investment funds are being directed away from new technologies/sunrise industrial development, and resultant employment, into non-productive infrastructure to cater for migrants.
Senior citizens, who experience reducing value in their social security, due to diminished public funds.
The average citizen, by lowering the quality of life: socially, economically, and environmentally.
The entire population, as our foreign debt inevitably continues to increase.
All future generations of Australians, as our resource base declines due to increased local consumption and accelerated environmental degradation.
All true-blue Australians (past, present, and future), because of the destruction of the Australian identity and culture by the twin policies of mass immigration and multiculturalism.
Two hundred years ago the British Government saw Australia as the dumping ground for Britain's convicts and it was our forebears who opposed this transportation. Indeed, on 8th August, 1849, the Anti-Transportation League, despite opposition from the Government, squatters, and industrialists, but with the mass support of the people, physically prevented the convict ship, the "Randolph", from docking in Melbourne. The future Governor, LaTrobe, was forced to have the ship proceed to Sydney to discharge its convicts.
The Government's disregard for public opinion forced our forebears of the 1840s to fight for their vision of Australia. It was their first stand - and their actions united the people with a sense of community, independence and nationhood.
As our forebears fought; so must we, one hundred and fifty years later, fight a battle for our right to determine our future.
Our population was 16.85 million in 1991 and by 2021, without any immigration, will grow to approximately 19 million through natural increase alone.
By 2030, with continuation of the recent high levels of immigration, the population will rise by 12 million; that is, the equivalent of the present combined populations of Melbourne, Sydney, Adelaide, and Perth, giving Australia a total population of 29 million.
It is not unknown for the Government and the immigration bureaucracy to attempt to disguise or hide the truth about immigration and population matters. For example; in 1987 the Government stated that its immigration intake was 120 000 when, in reality, figures supplied by the Australian Bureau of Statistics showed that 170 600 (net) were added to the population by immigration. This discrepancy arises from illegal and change-of-status migrants (e.g. visitors, students, tourists) and settlers from New Zealand. Apparently, the Government prefers to hide the real state of affairs regarding immigrant numbers. Also, the Government has refused to state what the optimum population for Australia is - despite the ecological urgency of the question, and despite repeated calls for it to give an actual answer to this important question.
Population projections: Australia 1988 - 2030 (Figures are in millions)
Year
No net immigration
Net Immigration: 125,000 per annum
Net Immigration: 170,000 per annum
1988
16.0
16.0
16.0
2000
17.5
19.5
20.2
2020
18.7
24.0
25.9
2030
18.9
26.1
29.0
(Sources: FitzGerald Report and Australian Bureau of Statistics)
With current policies, this will mean a doubling of our population in our lifetime.
Australians are now living longer and are having fewer children, and therefore older people will become an increasing proportion of the population. Pro-immigrationists say this maturing or "ageing" of our society is a bad thing - something to be feared - and which needs to be reversed by immigration.
This argument is used by some advocates of increasing immigration to frighten Australians into believing that the work force will not be large enough to support them in their old age. This is not so. The following points need to be considered:
1) Immigration will not significantly affect the age structure of our society. ANU demographic studies, the FitzGerald Report, and the Liberal Party Immigration Policy all agree on this.
2) The support of Senior Citizens is accomplished from their own savings over a productive life, and by increasing the productivity of the work force. The matter is one of successful economics and low taxation, not of population age.
3) Our society has been pushing productive older people from the work force by forced or early retirement. A great economic benefit will be gained by slowing this trend, allowing individuals to remain in the work force if they so desire.
4) Our young unemployed need to be placed into jobs or given work training.
5) Sophisticated, high-technology industries, which will be a major factor for industries of the 21st century, do not need a large or young work force.
6) Countries with rapidly increasing populations have a "young" population structure. These are poor, "Third World" countries headed for the problems of over-population.
7) We should welcome the transition to a mature, stable population as this signifies the end of our rapid growth phase and enables Australia to resolve its economic and environmental problems without being constantly faced by the increasing problems of rapid growth.
8) The most successful countries economically, Germany and Japan, have the "aged", mature, stable population that we are supposed to fear. In fact, we envy them their economic prosperity. They have no problems caring for their aged population - and neither shall we.
The new justification for immigration being promoted by such diverse organisations as the ACTU, Refugee Council of Australia, National Population Council, the United Nations, and our own media, is that with the inevitability of increasing mass movements of people in an unstable world, Australia is unable to resist or oppose entry of such people. This argument states that Australia is wiser to accept controlled high immigration rather than risk facing even greater unwanted uncontrolled immigration.
Such appeasement is a cowardly but "easy" solution for our weak politicians, but not a course likely to be followed in Europe where protective walls against immigration are already rising. As is the usual case with "easy" short-term solutions, this appeasement will bring us long-term problems.
The mass movement of people from Third World to First World countries will not solve Third World problems, but will create Third World standards of living in those countries unwilling to resist such immigration.
