Webdiary - Founded and Inspired by Margo Kingston

Come to think of it, what's wrong with being an "ideological opportunist" anyway?"

Actually what I said was, “When migrants continue with the imported religious culture, they never become Australians, just ideological opportunists, and should be sent back to where they come from.” which is different to assuming I was referring to all migrants.

We see the outcome of ideological opportunity in the current lives of the worlds indigenous, their countries and cultures. The opportunist religious have turned the world into a hell fire by using their ideological cultures to invade, disrupt, divide, conquer then suppress the people, there is no other viewable outcome in the world.

Capitalism isn't anything like survival. It is environmental and social fatality, the complete opposite to survival.

“If people come to live in this country for selfish reasons then so be it, so long as they are peaceful and considerate of their neighbours. If you chose to feel otherwise, for whatever your reasons then that is OK too.”

I've never met, seen or heard of a religious person being considerate to their neighbours, especially when their cultures differ so much. Viewing the population, exploitation and denigration of world resources and environment as progress and the belief that bringing more unstable and culturally opposite people here is going to improve things is illogical. Naturally if your mind is purely on economic greed and bureaucratic politically correct stupidity, then more people to you, means more consumers, but this world is already in fatal meltdown in more ways than you can count on one hand. The support for any more people of any description being allowed to migrate to this country without compatible social, cultural and linguistic skills is a sociological death wish.

F Kendall, I get the impression the only thing that concerns you is that some immigrants acquiesce in becoming Australianised, for whatever their reasons. They will not, or cannot severe their cultural ties with their homeland and its culture. Just as our British forefathers. The only difference between us and them is that "us" had the numbers and clout to impose our culture on the home team.

If people come to live in this country for selfish reasons then so be it, so long as they are peaceful and considerate of their neighbours. If you chose to feel otherwise, for whatever your reasons then that is OK too.

Justin, I certainly don't want to sound as if I'm automatically disagreeing with you. but...your posts disagrees with mine.

Once upon a time, in a land far away in the mists of time .....yes, people migrated here once, in post ww2 trauma , to make a new home - (altho the girls at school always enjoyed saying that Australia was far from the first choice, how far down the list they had to go to be accepted), and their  babies grew up as more-or-less-Australians...(I don't want to talk about the families I knew where Mein Kampf still had pride of place on the bookshelf). That was a long time ago, wasn't it?

Now, people come here to earn money or advantage - just as our kids do when they take jobs overseas.

Not to change their nationality.  Not to live, settle, or swap old loyalties.  Anxious, as they swivel between opportunities, that their children retain a sense of origin and destiny.

Just for the economic edge that will advantage them when they go home. 

Which they will, when they can. 

And, why should we expect other people to act differently?

The suggestion that the huge amount of foreign intellectual capital that we have bought  will choose to stay here because of our gorgeous way of life is, of course, the kind of illusion that the government uses to deny paying for training of its own citizens....but, which you are reflecting.  That these highly intelligent, highly trained, highly cultured people might choose to stay in our environment is ...interesting.  If not astonishing,  If not ignorant. 

Like our children, others will take advantage where they see it, and then go home when they can. As they should.

There are only two real issues in migration, environmental sustainability of the country and whether the immigrant brings their ideology to the country. Many cultural changes to countries are good. However, it is the ideological culture which brings with it ongoing and insurmountable problems giving migration a bad name. If you can take the cultural religious ideology out of the immigrant there are very few problems, other than we already see in the first local generation of immigrants when their home cultural ideology clashes with the host country’s life approach.

When migrants continue with the imported religious culture, they never become Australians, just ideological opportunists, and should be sent back to where they come from. I have in my life two immigrant families with people in their 80's from the same area of Europe. One dropped their cultural and religious ideology and took on being Aussies, the others still refuse to communicate unless really necessary in English. They believe women should be seen and not heard and still see themselves as European. The difference in family outcomes is stark: those clinging to their past are fractured and confused, whilst those who changed and adapted are happy, content and real Australians.

"...how many of our newer migrants will come to see Australia as "home"?  And, should they?"

If they stay I suppose they will call Australia home (why not?); their children most certainly will. And that's the way it usually works. The kids break down the barriers and mix and make babies, just as they should.

How wonderful - lots of beautiful half caste babies; and all the mixtures under the stars. Sounds good to me and they will all call Australia home, just as they should.

So, you will refuse the ultimate test of loyalty, Jay Somasundaram?  Good for you:  you have much to offer this country, I see.  I hope that you spread the sentiment far and wide.

In recent times there has been much economic and temporary migration.  If I go to work  internationally for a few years ... perhaps indefinitely, if my contract is extended,.... do I need to adopt and honour the customs of the country - (obviously yes, in some places), and express and act loyally towards it?  Perhaps.   Feel loyalty towards it?  If I were there on visas, I don't see why, although obviously it would be rather vile to act against it.  I would always be aware of my own nationality:  of old sounds, scents, sights, nostalgias, and the pull of them.

This is a different pattern from the post-ww2 situation, where people actually set out to create a different homeland....not that it worked for all of them, of course, but for many of their children, like the descendants of the British opportunists in Australia, it became a reality.  Australia became home.

I guess that my clumsy post was asking this:  just as in my childhood, some referred to England as "home" (and, I understand that this lingered far longer in South Africa,eg), how many of our newer migrants will come to see Australia as "home"?  And, should they?

“Do the Chinese immigrants of whom you speak wish to become Australians and to support Australia? Or are they just opportunists, fleecing any deal that comes along? ....but, remaining fundamentally Chinese, not Australian?”

Did the original British immigrants wish to become Australians? Or were they just opportunists…but remaining fundamentally British, not Australians?

Perhaps as much as the Chinese adopting Australian culture, the Australians should adopt Chinese culture. Our PM has done so…

Me? Australia is the sixth country I have lived in. Perhaps I will die here, perhaps not. I view myself more as a human than of any particular nationality or ethnicity. Am I an opportunist? Certainly. I permanently emigrated from my country of birth when I realised I had little chance of making a difference in an infectious madness called Nationalism. Am I loyal to Australia? I will refuse the ultimate test of loyalty – of sacrificing my life defending Australia in Afghanistan or Iraq.

On the other hand, I feel a sense of embarrassment/frustration/sorrow that our first citizens have a lower life expectancy than Bangladeshis (if this can be counted as a sign of loyalty and support). Have I done anything about it? No.

The assumtion, post WW2,  that migrants were eager to embrace a rather British culture.... was partly true, partly illusion.  Certainly many families never wanted to return to their homelands:  certainly many didn't want to abandon the customs, folklore and beliefs of their homelands.

Certainly some of their children didn't inherit the Australian ethos except at a superficial level,  Polically incorrect or not, this is now what has been whispered for some years  about the present NSW govt., and their ethnic names, and I hear prejudices expressed that I hadn't heard for 40 years.

People have always migrated because of perceived advantage to themselves.

The country to which they are migrating hopes for loyalty and support.  This seems to be true of migrants to  the US.  Will it be true of migrants to Australia?  Who knows?

Do the Chinese immigrants of whom you speak wish to become Australians. and to support Australia?  Or are they just opportunists, fleecing any deal that comes along?  ....but, remaining fundamentally Chinese, not Australian?