To state that Australia is a nation of immigrants is merely reiterating the obvious but it is nonetheless important, since migration has been part of the universal human journey for millennia. However, before delving further into the discussion it is necessary to first move beyond the populist hype that restricted immigration immediately equates to racism or xenophobia and open immigration is humane and progressive. Since even a cursory look at immigration shows how population flows impact every area of domestic and national life including employment, culture, food security, living standards and wealth. Quite justifiably the issue needs to be subject to public scrutiny, transparency and open debate.
This paper’s emphasis is not centered on stopping the dynamic migration process but on how to better facilitate its flow with a particular emphasis on understanding how government policy and free markets may positively contribute to this process. Furthermore, while it briefly mentions humanitarian intakes, its chief focus is leveled at core immigration.
What makes immigration successful? Should it be open or restricted and if the latter, at what rate and who is allowed entry?
Although there are no easy answers, there are underlying factors that help determine whether the process will eventually succeed or fail.
While immigration can greatly benefit nations economically and culturally, in itself it does not instantly signify either greater prosperity or success. This is particularly important when considering the political rhetoric for high immigration or “Big Australia” advocacy. If it were simply a case that merely adding more people automatically benefits a society then the current paradox where the wealthiest nations have smaller populations and poorer countries have higher populations would be reversed.
But as a general rule, the rate of population growth in the third world is inversely proportionate to economic development and per capita income, that is, the highest rates of population growth are nearly constantly found in the poorest, most regressive countries.
History of Western Immigration
To give some context to the discussion the nuanced details of history need addressing. As the late American economist, Milton Friedman, succinctly states, “No nation came full blown in the world with skills and capital. They all had to be derived from a long historical process.”
The West’s rise, particularly from the late 18th to19th century, marked a time where several interrelated events converged to bring about an unprecedented rise in prosperity and witnessed one of the largest shifts in European migration. Overwhelmingly, it was the Industrial Revolution that was the “root cause and the most powerful single variable explaining the timing, scale, geographic evolution and the composition of the great European migration.”
The six major factors that precipitated such changes are summarised as follows:
- Industrialization, competition and consumerism
- Rise in science, medicine and innovation
- Robust property rights and rule of law
- Greater political, social and religious freedoms
- High work ethic and recompense based on respect and merit
- Rise in benevolent and charitable societies
History bears out that where these factors are consistently found, immigration will undoubtedly benefit because prosperous and free economies attract those seeking better economic and personal freedoms.
Key Factors Influencing Migration Today
But there are key differences between the economic and social environments then and now. Leading up to the rise of industrialization political economist, David Ricardo, formed the theory of comparative advantage. Ricardo argued that economic advantage occurred where relatively similar free countries specialized in their respective trades. But behind Ricardo’s law also lay the reasonable assumption that in late 17th and early 18th century labour was trapped behind national borders. He could not have foreseen the speed at which travel across nations now moves and the dissipation of borders (particularly in Europe), making them highly porous. Similarly, the nature of immigration pushing people out from one country and pulling them into another have marked historical differences.
Firstly, while the history of modern immigration contributed to population growth of between 17 to 20 per cent, today it makes up a significant bulk of the population surge. There are various contributing factors that have made this possible in virtually every western country but within the Australian experience these include changes to immigration laws and the variety of migration programs available. These caused a growth in onshore applications primarily due to: submissions no longer accepted or rejected overseas before being granted permanent residency, an increase in family-reunification laws, business migration programs and temporary migration visas.
Moreover, the major driver for immigration flows today is fast becoming migration flees, which suggests that there is now less comparative economic advantage experienced as more people are escaping poor, dysfunctional and oppressive societies into richer Western countries. As economist Peter Smith points out, this type and level of migration is synonymous with a form of economic aid. Under this scenario, the benefits are selective. Low wage employers may boost their profits and new migrants experience gains at the expense of the country’s least well-off citizens, while the nations immigrants leave behind remain poor and dysfunctional.
Along with this, genuinely free markets, which naturally lead to trade specialization require private entrepreneurship to make business decisions therefore allowing supply and demand forces to set the price of goods and services, and hire of necessary labour. But these are undermined by coercive geo-political trade agreements. Not least of those exerting pressure on how sovereign nations run their immigration quotas and distribute their resources are the unelected bureaucratic juggernauts of the UN and EU.
This has led to a decrease in free market competition and the growth of bureaucracy, monopolies and special interest lobby industries, such as construction/housing, education and migration agencies.
The final disturbing trend that Ricardo would not have foreseen or experienced is the west’s growth in welfare. This burgeoning system is threatening domestic companies and individuals, as governments look for more tax revenue to fill expanding public expenditure, but it has also unwittingly become an enticing economic incentive or pull factor for migrants.
The Need For Clear Economic Rationale
Immigration policy should seek to provide improved economic outcomes for both the host nation and the immigrant.
While every civilised nation recognizes that it has a duty to provide some level of assistance for the poor and those genuinely unable to work, the shift to a predominately welfare state means we now have growing immigration that competes with the host nation’s residents for direct and indirect benefits. This is problematic because if government’s primary obligation were first to its citizenry then this requires immigration to be weighed against its impact not only to the nations aggregate welfare but also those least well off or its poorest citizens.
Against such concerns stand growth population advocates (also referred to as ‘Big Australia’) who allay any fears of unfair welfare distribution. They contend that high immigration is an outright necessity for maintaining productivity and reducing unemployment, to delivering the necessary tax revenue that not only outweighs any increased welfare for immigrants but also provide for the nations ageing population.
But as the government’s own report affirms, an immigration-dependent policy will not stop either. Simply adding more people is not a panacea to magically increasing productivity or innovation and may simply mask deeper structural problems. For example, the current ageing population correlates to births 75 years earlier during the post-war, baby-boom generation. Ageing and therefore its broader economic impact is a long-term process. Therefore, more immigration today, particularly with family reunification schemes, only means more people growing old later, possibly at even higher levels, and more welfare as they look to the state for assistance. This would mean an endless self-perpetuating cycle dependent on more immigration to counter more aging and so on.
Consequently, there is a particular irony behind the nostalgic cries for the immigration days of Australia’s post war era when the nation had to ‘populate or perish’. Clearly, the landscape has changed. Australia was one of the few industrialised countries that fared relatively well after the World War II. The ravaged nations of the world needed what it could produce and there was a collaborative effort to bring in unskilled and semi-skilled labour for our factories, mines and farms. Projects such as the Snowy Mountains Hydro-Electric Scheme alone attracted 100 000 people, 70 per cent of which where immigrants. Today, Australia’s manufacturing industry has shrunk, competition is global and unemployment remains relatively high with Roy Morgan Research estimates greater than the official ABS statistics, combining underemployment and unemployment at 19.4 per cent.
In light of such figures, higher immigration gives pause for serious thought and requires probing questions that need answering. If a clear economic rationale is to guide immigration then its affects on the labour market and potential mismatches need evaluating.
For instance, why are the unemployed not taking up the work opportunities and businesses are instead relying on 457 visas? Or why is a nation that is fast growing into a service economy importing record numbers of accountants, cooks and nurses when domestic graduates are readily available?
The Department of Employment seems to affirm this view noting, “employers continue to recruit skilled workers without marked difficulty, and the number of occupations in shortage is at a historical low.”
In examining the proper context it is also becomes crucial to scrutinize the ‘Work vs. Welfare Trade-Off’ effect. That is, could welfare be partly to blame for the labour mismatch due to the trade off it creates between choosing assistance over wage earning? If evidence suggests that it does then perhaps there is a readily available domestic workforce that is deeply underutilised. And how are minimum wage laws contributing? Are they partly to blame for employers choosing temporary visa holders—in effect subsidised low-cost labour—over higher priced domestic workers? 
Furthermore, is higher immigration providing less incentive for employers to train domestic workers, especially in trade skills, when it may be easier to import workers? As one columnist writes, “Cheap immigrant labour is pursued while large sections of the native workforce are fobbed-off with welfarism and deferred-adulthood “educational” courses that do nothing educational, but make politicians look good by keeping “students” off the unemployment register.”
Should there not be a bigger incentive to invest in an increased productive capacity per worker? This may be the time to re-examine phased out apprenticeships that once existed not only in traditional trades, but also in developing industries such as IT firms, media and corporations through hands on learning, experience and promotion based on merit.
Can high immigration be holding back the type of innovation that is really required to boost productivity? In a globally competitive cutthroat economy it is easy to see how employers with tighter profit margins would choose readily available cheaper imported labour over producing new and innovative technology.
Finally, high immigration also seems counter productive to the governments recent announcement to raise the retirement age. Particularly when workplace participation for men and women aged 55-plus is higher.
In determining how much immigration is productive it is also helpful to understand that even without the robust underlying economic structures that immigration helps to augment, some industries will have disproportionate greater advantages with higher population irrespective of the broader economic realities. Housing and construction stand out as clear winners.
Yet the flipside for home seekers means facing record-breaking property prices and higher debt to income levels. Victoria in particular has relied heavily on housing and construction, allowing it to buffer much of the economic storms from the resource sector downturn. But with ABS figures for 2014-15 showing nominal GDP growth at just 1.8 per cent, the weakest growth since 1961-62, the end of a honeymoon buoyed by housing would bring about painful economic consequences.
Welfare and Immigration
As previously mentioned, arguably a key factor differentiating past immigration flows with today, apart from sheer numbers, is welfare. It has been the growing trend for Western nations for over 70 years.
Today’s welfare has ballooned well beyond its original design and far exceeds sustainable debt levels. In 1970 Australia needed an average of 7.5 people of working age relative to the pension. Today, it is roughly 4.6 and will halve again by 2055.
Again, Friedman notes the key historic differences. “If you have a welfare state where every resident is promised a minimum level of income or subsistence regardless, then it really is a problem…A welfare state to some degree means the reduction of everybody to the same uniform level.”
As an aside, the alternative to broad government welfare might lie in the revival of a former time where the wellbeing of communities and individuals largely fell to family, community, voluntary association, charities and the wealthy themselves. Historically, these were vital counterweights to the excesses and indifferences of materialism.
However, with today’s socio-economic environment the concern comes from the fact that once permanent residency (PR) is granted there are many benefits that flow. This includes the eligibility of the visa holder and their family to work and study, Medicare, social security payments, sponsorship of eligible relatives for PR and in the case of asylum seekers, housing.Government reports clearly acknowledge the higher strain from immigration to social expenditure.
With such generous assistance it is unsurprising that welfare states provide a strong incentive or pull factor for immigration and, particularly with generous family reunification schemes, add to more demand for public expenditure including public services. It is a rational choice.
As Swinburne University of Technology Sociologist, Katharine Betts points out, Australia is an arid land and most migrants head for major cities but infrastructure has not kept pace; traffic congestion, water supply, housing affordability, energy investment, hospital, schools are constantly strained and in need of more taxpayer funds for expansion.
In Australia, some migrant groups have high levels of welfare dependency. A 2011 report by the Immigration Department revealed 94 per cent of Afghan refugee households received Centrelink payments and the group had an employment rate of just 9 per cent. The numbers were similar for Iraqi households, with only 12 per cent in employment after five years and a 93 per cent reliance on Centrelink. The figures raise significant imminent concerns because the Muslim population grew 40 per cent between 2006 and 2011 and is predicted to rise from 476,291 in 2011 (2.2 per cent of the total population) to 714,000 by 2030. 
The underlying reasons for such dependency are undoubtedly varied. But it seems incongruous that among the critics is African-American Islamic journalist living in Sydney claiming the countries welfare and multicultural policies are driving young Muslims into the arms of terrorists. This is not an isolated claim as all established and growing welfare states face similar social economic tensions.
Germany offers a confronting image particularly in view of Australia’s growth in temporary visas becoming the main contributor to net overseas migration. Turkish immigrants—first bought in after WWII as guest workers to help rebuild a starving nation with little mechanical power and highly dependent of human labour—now have three times the rate of welfare dependency as ethnic Germans.
In the US, The National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) determined that “the generous welfare benefits offered by some states have magnetic effects and alter the geographic sorting of immigrants to the US—attracting many to California.”
And one of the most generous welfare nations, Sweden, is no better off. In the district of Rosengard, 80 per cent of its inhabitants are immigrants but only 38 per cent have work leaving the disgruntled angry youths to riot and set the town alight. Similar examples can be witnessed in nearly every European welfare state.
But given Australia’s close historical ties with the UK, its immigration experience may be of particular interest. According to government figures, just over 370,000 people claiming benefits are migrants who came to the UK as foreign nationals.
Yet despite evidence of large-scale immigration putting huge strains on the welfare system, governments of all colours cling to an unwavering faith of the ‘undisputed’ miracles it offers.
Perhaps part of the political rhetoric stems from the observation that welfare dependency ensures government re-election. Why bite the hand that feeds?
Consider documents released under the British Freedom of Information Act that uncovered the Labour Party’s plan to open the immigration floodgates for largely the ‘social objectives’ of altering the demographic and cultural pattern of the UK. The flow on effect is apparently aimed at securing votes. Current estimations have 80 per cent of immigrants choosing Labour, a powerful election bloc.
It seems the ALP may have lifted a leaf from their British counterparts manual. What else explains the Rudd/Gillard disastrous border policies that saw over 50,000 arrive across the ocean and 1,200 perish in their attempt? The vote buying theory argues that newer immigrants struggling to establish themselves naturally gravitate toward left-leaning parties who not only campaign for more immigration (particularly from disaffected nations) but create ‘grievance industries’ through vague assertions of racism and inequality, keeping immigrants insecure and continually in need of their ‘protection’.
But while the politicization of immigration is certainly not new,  this time around it could spell the first time nations commit suicide via political correctness.
What appears as the clearer picture from all over the world is that high immigration is now exposing the major fault lines within the welfare state. And in watching the limits of this system, people are once again asking what it means to live in a liberal democratic nation. Have western liberal values been diluted or replaced in the name of multiculturalism and welfarism and is it right to impose our values on immigrants?
Immigration and Culture
Liberal societies have characteristically been relatively welcoming to migrants. Proof of this is seen in their strong migration programs that help boost the dynamism, creativity and energy that make them such attractive places to live. But liberal societies also see migration as an exchange from which both parties hope they will benefit – the migrant gets the chance to live in free and prosperous society, the society gets the labour, skills and ideas of the migrant.
This does not mean there is an indifference for people beyond national boarders, people rarely believe that those outside their group have no moral standing or legitimate interests, merely that members of a nation (as with any group) can to some extent reasonably choose who enters and the terms on which they join. Otherwise, they are reduced to merely arbitrary places to live.
However, many classical liberals contend that if a nation allows free movement of goods, it should likewise allow the same freedom of labour. Yet a closer examination reveals that there are crucial distinctions within the framework of immigration.
As Helen Hughes explains, “Goods, services, capital and technology do not have the associated social attributes that mark people. They can therefore move more freely within and among nation states. People cannot. Language, concepts of freedom, religion, law, political behaviour and culture in a broad sense vary among nations. Such differences do not have to be accommodated in trade and capital flows…”
Furthermore, trade requires an agreement for voluntary exchange or a mutual invitation. Immigration does not require a reciprocal agreement, as it is largely determined by governments whose citizens have to contend with new arrivals not only for work but public services, infrastructure and welfare assistance.
But even if there were undisputed economic advantages and all welfare entitlements for the newly arrived stopped, the simple fact remains, as one commentator put it, “culture trumps economics”. After all, what makes a country great, at least in western notions, is not its wealth and power but its culture and values.
Before the age of welfare, the primary function of government in a free market nation was allowing the trading process to flow with limited interference other than protecting its citizens rights and their private property. That basic protective function extended to the prevention of foreign assault. Which is how many see the kind of situation unfolding all over the world as waves of immigrants flee dysfunctional lands for western borders that are unable to curb the sheer weight of those pressing to get in. 
The political class who felt assured that their concern for global welfare would appease those arriving into falling in with the collective but failed to properly understand what it meant for a nation to belong and the special rights it has towards its citizens. There was little discussion about the values of those they were letting in and how many could be reasonably absorbed. Now it seems after recovering from the initial shock it is those same citizens who—undoubtedly feeling besieged and unprotected from their own progressive governments’ lack of border policy but also berated by the cultural elites as everything from close-minded to racist protectionists—are taking to social media and the streets in big numbers. By all accounts their concerns have both legitimacy and serve as graphic warnings for Australia.
The greatest numbers of those immigrating are Muslim. Historian Bernard Lewis states that given the current trends Europe will have a Muslim majority by the end of the 21st century. While most certainly want peaceful lives it is nonetheless the rise of Islamism that raises the most concern. Islamism is inherently political. It seeks neither equality nor tolerance but strives under the protections of a ‘privileged’ class to bring the state under the influence of Islam.
In part the blame rests with the chattering and political classes who—whether by deliberate design or well intentioned motivations—removed the historic values and beliefs that made it a distinct nation and replaced it with a vague and confusing concept of multiculturalism. In this cultural vacuity stepped a well-defined and authoritarian legal and civic system. Sharia law is the Islamic path that details all aspects of religious, personal and political life; there is no separation of secular and religious. It places the Islamists loyalty first to the Umma or the worldwide brotherhood of Islam.
Clearly such a competing and dissimilar justice system poses a challenge and threat to the western nations concept of the rule of law (that all people and government should be subject to one law and be guided by it). There are far too many examples to illustrate how this is playing out in every known western nation. But nowhere is this more apparent than in Britain.
After decades of Muslim migration—although official numbers are nearly impossible, population estimates are placed at three million or nearly four per cent—it the fastest growing religion in Britain and it is making its presence felt as Islamic norms and practices are promoted in all areas of society.
The Guide Dogs Association has reported receiving regular complaints of Muslim drivers forcing them out of buses and taxis on the basis that the dogs are ‘unclean’. Similarly, a Scottish police force apologized and pulled an advertisement of an image of a trainee police puppy after local councilor advised it caused offence to some Muslims who see dogs as unclean.
In East London, councilors were asked not to eat or drink in town hall meetings, business meetings were reduced and special prayer breaks were included for the Islamic season of Ramadan. But at what can only be viewed as a display of profound double standards, Christmas meals were renamed as ‘festive lunches’.
By far the British education system whether willingly or not has selectively abandoned its long tradition to freedom of ideas and rationale inquiry, more often sinking into a sort of national self-loathing for everything western particularly the history and values of its own culture which has so enriched them. In particular, assimilation is portrayed in western context as demeaning to Muslims and the colonization prism is almost always viewed as the evils of the West. This myopic historic view is highlighted further as a rising number of Islamist university donors are influencing the placement of either academic chairs and lecturing posts or persuading university staff to censor their work. 
The media who long viewed themselves as a fearless bulwark of liberty has also fallen prey to self-censorship for fear of offending Islam. This brings the issue of exceptionalism into clear view. By way of illustration, despite thousands of complaints BBC (UK) broadcast a Jerry Springer episode containing countless expletives and depicting Jesus as a sexual deviant in a large nappy singing “a little bit gay”. Yet the news channel’s Director justified a more sensitive standard toward Islam because it is “an ethnic identity which has not been integrated…”.
So its hardly unsurprising that for a growing number there is less integration and more entrenchment occurring as the cultural and political climate breathing life into this irrational fear of offense has created the most bizarre and frightening contradictions.
Social unrest and serious crime is left unchecked in highly populated Muslim communities for fear of appearing and avoiding charges of prejudice, racism, Islamophobia or upsetting what is ludicrously called “community harmony”.
The deeply disturbing report on child sexual exploitation in Rotherham between 1997-2013 bought this all into sharp, chilling view. These were the latest in a long series of trials for rape and sex attacks on under-age English girls by Muslim gangs across the country including the quiet market towns of Aylesbury, Banbury, Birmingham, Blackburn, Bristol, Burnley, Cambridge, Carlisle, Derby, Leeds, London, Manchester, Middlesbrough, Oldham, Oxford, Peterborough, Preston, Rochdale, Sheffield and Telford; with more trials due to take place in Newcastle and Manchester.
While unique cultural centres are welcomed, celebrated and enjoyed in every part of the world, the rise of religiously based off- limits reserves are far more palpable and highly problematic. In the normal course of life, no government can of course force integration—someone can quite happily choose to live life as a hermit or choose to mix and live among a distinct group—however enclaves or what are now referred to as ‘no-go zones’ are the antithesis of integration. They are a type of separatist multiculturalism where entire communities largely live a parallel existence and actively resist identifying with their host nation.
Such separatism mixed with a potent and proselyting faith, has left many, including UK’s Prime Minister, visibly troubled. Consider outspoken the British Islamic cleric, Anjem Choudary, who rationalises Muslims taking welfare because nine-to-five work is for the life of a Kuffar (non-Muslim), and urges minimal work in accordance with the life of other revered Islamic figures who “the rest of the year were busy with Jihad and things like that”. Which would seem to include a British conquest here and there. “Now we are taking over Birmingham and populating it…we are going to take England: the Muslims are coming.”
We cannot continue to feign ignorance nor continue down the path of endless appeasement when considering that such views are not uncommon as many would like to believe. Rather, for the Islamist it is a logical extension of the broader strategy for reshaping the modern world through Dawa (the call of Muslims to invite non-Muslims to Islam). Take for instance Germany where Muslims are openly proselytizing and launched a nationwide campaign for “A Koran in Every Home.”
While Australia has not yet experienced the same scale of Islamism to our overseas western counterparts, there are worrying signs not least among them are the Lindt Café and Parramatta shootings.
There is a significant support base for Hizb ut-Tahrir, which describes itself “as a political party whose ideology is Islam”. It seeks to restore the caliphate and impose sharia law. The organisation also refuses to condemn Australian Muslims who have left to fight for ISIS. Politicians should rightfully oppose such designs to make Australia an Islamic country and stand committed to its western liberal values.
The media should also recognise that sanitising Islamism only diminishes and disempowers the voices of countless Muslims who enjoy and promote the liberty of living in an open democracy.   In so doing the government not only upholds the freedoms of its citizenry but also supports Muslims themselves who have come here not merely for shelter but a better life.
The fundamental point that needs to be grasped is that without the key dynamic factors that underpinned the growth of the Industrial Revolution, the advantages of immigration then and now are not immediately comparable. A clear economic rationale needs to drive the national immigration debate, or the alternative means governments will be guided by interest-group politics— whether large corporate monopolies or ethnic groups— for fear of voter backlash.
Along with this there should be a clear understanding of the values, attitudes and ideas that shaped this nation. Citizenship is more than the right to live and enjoy the benefits of a nation but a desire to share its core values for freedom and democracy.
An essential element of good policy requires an appreciation for the lessons of history and to look beyond what economist Thomas Sowell calls “stage one thinking” to the second, third and as far ahead as the logical mind can reasonably determine. Today more than ever Western generosity needs to be tempered with doses of realism and discernment. Otherwise, we are destined to experience yet another painful lesson of ‘compassion without responsibility’, the result of a policy failure to grasp its unintended long-term consequences. 
© Eleni Arapoglou – Australian Christians Policy Researcher
 David M Kennedy, “Can We Still Afford to Be a Nation of Immigrants?” pg. 7, November 1996 Issue.
Australian Government Productivity Commission, “Migrant Intake into Australia” May 2015; The recently published 2015 International Migration Outlook records about 4 million new permanent immigrants to OECD countries in 2014 (see www.oecd.org/migration/imo). Moreover, there are almost as many temporary migrants, such as students. Asylum requests have reached an historical high of 800,000 and set to increase. See: http://www.oecdobserver.org/news/fullstory.php/aid/5010/We_are_entering_a_new_era_of_migration.html#sthash.2nkz0vyq.dpuf
 Peter Smith, “Bad Economics”, pg. 175, Connor Court Publishing.
 Henry Hazlitt, “Economics in One Lesson”, pg, 102, 1979 by Three Rivers Press
 http://www.unido.org/fileadmin/Lima_Declaration.pdf The Lima Declaration (1975) calls for the redistribution of world industry so developing countries attain 25% of industry by 2000. It sets out the “main principles of industrialisation” and defines the “means by which the international community as a whole might take broad action to establish a New International Economic Order”.
 Peter McDonald and Rebecca Kippen, “The Impact of Immigration on the Ageing of Australia’s Population,” May 1999. http://demography.anu.edu.au/sites/default/files/publications/pop-futures/01.pdf
 This was also the conclusion reached by a Canadian study (Canada has one the world’s highest per capita immigration). “Whatever the benefits of immigration to Canada’s economy and society, and to immigrants themselves, immigration cannot relieve Canada of the challenges of an aging population.”. See: C.D. Howe Institute, “No Elixir of Youth: Immigration Cannot Keep Canada Young.” Yvan Guillemette and William B.P. Robs, www.cdhowe.org No. 96, September 2006.
 When Australia’s immigration numbers are compared on a per capita basis, the ratios are 2.5 times greater than the US. See: William D. Rubinstein, “Population, Religion and Immigration”, July 25th, 2015, The Quadrant.
 In Germany for instance, some 261 million net immigrants would be necessary over the next 90 years to stabilize the current old-age dependency ratio. See: http://projectm-online.com/leading-thoughts/demographics/immigration-no-solution-to-german-demographic-crisis
 “Migrant Intake into Australia”, Productivity Commission Issues Paper, May 2015.
 Temporary visas often serve as a pathway for permanent immigration. In 2012-13 over 20 per cent of permanent visas were from those who previously held 457 visas. In fact, over the last decade temporary immigration is the main source of net overseas migration. “Migrant Intake into Australia”, Productivity Commission Issued Paper, May 2015, pgs, 12 & 13.
 Australian unions including some representing the lowest-paid workers have been found hiring labour on 457 visas, among them include jobs for workplace relations and copywriters. It is seen as an act of hypocrisy and duplicity since unions have long campaigned against imported labour and long held to be defenders of the ‘Aussie battler’. See: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/unions-caught-out-in-hiring-imported-labour-on-457-visas/story-fn59noo3-1227486102165?sv=bd7e80c828f0d84530a1e77884138e5f
 Brent S. Sirota, “The Church of England and the Age of Benevolence: 1680-1730”, The Christian Monitors, Yale Press.
 Helen Hughes, “Immigrants, Refugees and Asylum Seekers: A Global View” The Centre of Independent Studies Policy Monograph 54.
 Peter McDonald and Rebecca Kippen, “The Impact of Immigration on the Ageing of Australia’s Population,” page 6, May 1999.
 These considerations do not take into account the further effects of temporary visas (currently at five million) or New Zealand immigration.
 Swinburne lecturer, Katharine Betts , notes high dependency of welfare during the 80s where the old-assisted passage scheme was abolished, and family-reunion and humanitarian migrants increased. See: Katharine Betts,” The Great Divide: Immigration Politics in Australia”, Duffy & Snellgrove, 1999.
 http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefing-paper/355; Stephen Glover, “Immigration and Labour’s unforgivable betrayal of the British people”, The Daily Mail, 13 December 2012.
 Mark O’Connor, “This Tired Brown Land”, Duffy & Snellgrove (1998)
 For example, totalitarian regimes can have concentrated power and wealth. In the Middle East, Saudi Arabia stands out as a case in point. It is one of the world’s biggest oil producers, producing over 10 million barrels per day but approximately one quarter of Saudis live below the poverty line. It also has one of the worst human rights records particularly toward Christians. Leaving Islam is punishable by death. On average, the nation executes one person every two days. Recent social media attention focused on Ralf Badawi the creator of Free Saudi Liberals. He was sentenced in June 2015, to 1,000 lashes and ten years in prison.
 Journalists in Western Europe continue to depict immigrants as “refugees” fleeing war in Syria. But according to statistics released by the European Union, only 25 % of them come from Syria with reports of widespread selling of passports and birth certificates at affordable prices. The vast majority of migrants come from Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Eritrea, Somalia, and Nigeria.
-  Because Islam was the culture of people formerly colonized, many European rejected criticism of Islam as insensitive, hoping they would blend into a multicultural Europe and did not require the assimilation of Muslims who came into their nations. Any criticism of Islam was treated as a form of racism or an irrational fear termed as ‘Islamophobia’
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/3198804/BBC-boss-says-Islam-should-be-treated-more-sensitively-than-Christianity.html; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1583631/Ben-Elton-BBC-scared-of-Islam-jokes.html ; http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1480689/BBC-defends-Springer-opera-despite-50000-complaints.html
 In 2002, the assassination of the openly gay academic turned politician, Pim Fortuyn, drew attention to the problems of immigrants in Holland, “In Rotterdam we have third-generation Moroccans who still don’t speak Dutch, oppress women and won’t live by our values…I have gay friends who have been beaten up by young Moroccans in Rotterdam.” Newspaper columnist Prof. dr B. Smalhout reflected on the media’s role in demonizing the man before his murder: “Fortuyn was made an outcast by politically correct Netherlands. He was depicted as a fake professor, a second Hitler… a neo-Nazi, a narcissistic homosexual and a political outcast.”
 Postscript: Since writing this paper Germany experienced one of the worst cases of mass sexual assault. New Year’s Eve 2016 in Cologne was the scene to these horrifying events where about 1,000 Arab and African men (among them refugees) groped, spat and raped women. Other cities also experienced similar criminal acts prompting claims that they were coordinated. http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/migrants-planned-sex-attacks-in-cologne/news-story/bfc9cb3d20415050a47bb57ebb3c4fa3