Yesterday’s Queensland marginal seat polling from Roy Morgan turns out to have been a teaser for today’s full suite, which also targets four seats each from New South Wales and Western Australia as well as one each from Victoria, South Australia and Tasmania. With samples of 200 each, the electorate-level results are of little utility, but where results from four seats are available from a particular state we can combine them to get a meaningful picture from a margin-of-error of about 3.5 per cent. The swing of 4.8 per cent to the Liberal National Party in Queensland has not been borne out elsewhere: the four New South Wales seats collectively show a 1.0 per cent swing to Labor, while Western Australia produces an essentially status quo result with a 0.2 per cent swing to the Liberals. The single-seat polling for the other three states is less useful, but for what it’s worth the result from Hindmarsh in South Australia sits well with this morning’s Advertiser poll. Taken in their entirety, the results point to no swing at all from 2007.
| ALP 2PP | |||
| 2007 | POLL | SWING | |
| Macarthur | 50.1 | 38.5 | -11.6 |
| Robertson | 50.1 | 48.5 | -1.6 |
| Eden-Monaro | 52.3 | 59 | 6.7 |
| Macquarie | 50.1 | 60.5 | 10.4 |
| NSW SEATS | 1.0 | ||
| Hasluck | 51 | 50 | -1.0 |
| Brand | 56.1 | 54.5 | -1.6 |
| Perth | 58.1 | 57 | -1.1 |
| Fremantle | 59.15 | 62 | 2.9 |
| WA SEATS | -0.2 | ||
| Flynn | 52.3 | 45 | -7.3 |
| Longman | 51.7 | 43.5 | -8.2 |
| Dawson | 52.4 | 49 | -3.4 |
| Leichhardt | 54.1 | 54 | -0.1 |
| QLD SEATS | -4.8 | ||
| Corangamite (Vic) | 50.85 | 55.5 | 4.7 |
| Hindmarsh (SA) | 55.05 | 56.5 | 1.5 |
| Bass (Tas) | 51 | 62.5 | 11.5 |
| ALL SEATS | 0.1 | ||
Psephos
It’s not about ignoring polls, the people etc. It is about tackling the issue from a different perspective. Refugees are seen as Abbott’s political strength.
It could be, albeit with a skilled communicator, be turned into his biggest weakness.
Good leaders amalgamate the nation. Abbott’s style is divisive.
[So now of course we have the usual string of posts arguing that Labor should adopt the inner-city elite view of immigration and tell the working class they are racists and why don’t they just get over it.]
now thats impossible they have to be educated.
and they may never be when you send a very well educated person who is working in a large factory with amazing qualifications to a men’s toilet and think its funny
when you tell that same person to bring a plate but dont say there is food to be on that plate and think its funny
when you put a piece of string across a kitchen this person is renting and say if you cross that string your out in the cold, when you leave this place and have no where to go because you have no reference from that person
when you buy a block of land and then go to build on it and have papers to say it s yours and you are told to go away get back to you own country you so an so
etc. now i want you to close your eyes and think when was this and where was this.
keep quessing.
it was in 1950 in Doonside in nsw a perfectley love dutch couple with two little children
yes my inlaws.
so we have come no where its just we pick on a new group
… and I’ll say it again: I’m truly sick and tired of hearing companies whingeing NOW about “losing” the tax cut (a tax cut they never had unless the RSPT went ahead), but not saying one word in support fo the cut before Rudd left the scene.
This is the worst kind of nastiness. They were completely unprepared to lobby in favour of the tax, and its simultaneous company tax cuts, leaving the govt. to flounder, and now they’re complaining they won’t get it.
What a bunch of greedy, double-dealing, wimpish, cheating, nasty bastards.
BB
Here, here!
That does sound great, but…Phew!
A bloke from Somalia living and working in Tassie!
And I think I feel a bit chilly at the moment…
No matter what Gillard says or does about the asylum seeker issue, she will lose the debate.
[No matter what Gillard says or does about the asylum seeker issue, she will lose the debate.]
just dont have one, just say the arrangement we have now are in place
walk off you only have a debate if you say to much to the msm
i think julia is a lot smarter than she be given credit for.
trust a mainlander to bring the weather in to it. northisland person
[And I think I feel a bit chilly at the moment…]
Psephos @ 298
[Well, comrades, it isn’t quite that simple, because without working class votes you will have the Libs in power for ever.]
Both parties have positions which the working class do not like. for Labor it is intelligent and humane positions on rights and social issues. For the liberals it is ideologically based economic rationalist dogma like privatisation, the GST, tax cuts and welfare for the rich, and cuts in services.
The difference between Labor and the Liberals is that the liberals don’t disavow everything they actually stand for. They play to their strengths and hope their strengths outweigh their known weaknesses with the swinging voters.
Labor just throws its weaknesses (which – baby out with the bath water – are actually its core principles) overboard and ends up standing for nothing. And then they still lose.
[They play to their strengths and hope their strengths outweigh their known weaknesses with the swinging voters.]
All parties do that.
[Labor just throws its weaknesses (which – baby out with the bath water – are actually its core principles) overboard and ends up standing for nothing.]
That assumes that support for illegal immigration is a Labor core principle, which of course it isn’t. All parties represent classes. Labor represents the working class, although of course it has other supporters as well. If Labor doesn’t articulate the views of the working class, it will lose their votes to someone else, and rightly so. The Australian working class has always had conservative views on immigration.
my say,
Good points! Anyway- as I’m sure people in the Northern & Southern Highlands would agree- winter in most of Tasmania is probably nicer than winter in some parts of NSW!
[If Labor doesn’t articulate the views of the working class, it will lose their votes to someone else, and rightly so.]
So if the “working class” is racist, labor should be racist? If the working class is sexist, then labor should be sexist? If the working class is homophobic, then Labor should be homophobic?
Surely there is a role for leadership on issues, rather than just indiscriminately “articulating” the views of the least informed and least educated segment of the community? Ooh, saying that was elitist, I know. But it is also true.
All I am saying is that John Howard never felt he had to articulate the views of the working class on economic matters in order to secure sufficient of their votes to be elected. And Labor doesn’t have to do it on social matters. They can advocate gay marriage and a decent policy towards asylum seekers and still win the election. And win it handily, so long as they are smart and play to their strengths and exploit the Coalition’s weaknesses (which are many).
[They can advocate gay marriage and a decent policy towards asylum seekers and still win the election. And win it handily, so long as they are smart and play to their strengths and exploit the Coalition’s weaknesses (which are many).]\
very well said.
we should not bow to any social group just have good policy to cover most
opinions and good quality sound economic principals to go with it.
[That assumes that support for illegal immigration is a Labor core principle, which of course it isn’t.]
One would hope that Paul Howe’s views, rather than those espoused by Psephos hold sway with Gillard’s advisers.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/at-last-we-have-a-real-leader–pity-that-its-not-rudd-20091028-hl00.html
[At last, we have a real leader – pity that it’s not Rudd
October 29, 2009
The Labor Party has found a leader’s voice on boat people and immigration – but it’s not the Prime Minister’s.
The task has fallen to a most unlikely candidate, a 28-year-old right-wing union leader who grew up poor in the Blue Mountains.
It’s the voice of the national secretary of the Australian Workers Union, the very outfit that led the creation of White Australia a century ago.
Advertisement: Story continues below
While Kevin Rudd continued to duck and weave yesterday to avoid antagonising anti-immigrant sentiment in the outer suburbs, Paul Howes confronted it.
Howes is saying plainly what Rudd has not dared. He was in Canberra yesterday speaking in favour of humanity and strongly setting out Labor’s policy in favour of immigration.
”The immaturity in political debate in Australia sometimes makes me sick,” Howes said. ”There are politicians in both the Liberal and Labor parties who are exploiting the issue of race to whip up fear in the community.
”Question time is dominated by 78 people on a boat. We have around 50,000 visa overstayers every year,” he said of people who arrive by plane rather than boat. ”Is anyone saying this is a national crisis? One reason there is no outrage is that these people are mainly white and speak English. Is anyone demanding we clean out the backpackers’ hostels of Bondi and Surry Hills?”
He also set out the basic fact that underlies the quiet consensus of Australian politics, the reason the Howard and Rudd governments support an immigration intake of about 140,000 to 170,000 a year: ”We are a nation of immigrants. The history of Australia since World War II has been successive waves of immigration.
”All were opposed by substantial sections of the population. They were wrong every time.”
Howes doesn’t want to be the leading Labor voice on the issue. He was in Canberra to talk about manufacturing. He risks the disfavour of much of his own membership by supporting refugees and immigrants. He would much rather Rudd led: ”Rudd has an approval rating of 68 per cent [71 per cent in the Nielsen poll]. He has the unanimous loyalty of his caucus. He has an almost non-existent Opposition.
”He is in a unique position to change the debate. Changing the way Australia deals with race would be pretty special – that’s Labor hero stuff.”
But Rudd offers little more than his formulaic ”tough but humane” soundbite while savaging the Opposition.
Interestingly, Rudd has been making the case for a much bigger population: ”I actually believe in a big Australia,” he said. This week he announced a bigger federal hand in planning the growth of cities. It’s just that he won’t connect this with immigration.
Howes can barely conceal his disgust: ”Some things have to be above polling.”]
[We are a nation of immigrants]
I’m getting quite tired of hearing this….if we are in fact a nation of immigrants, then why are so many immigrants getting tired of the immigration rate?
Our population is made up of 75%-80% native born Australians, and has done during any 12 month period since Federation.
I think he did. Well, he had to lie about them until he got a Senate majority, anyway…
There is a process of change which involves interplay between the views of the educated elite and the views of the working class. 75 years ago most working class Australians supported White Australia, opposed equal pay for women and thought poofters should go to jail. Now, for the most part, they don’t think those things. Elite figures like Evatt, Whitlam and Dunstan played leadership roles in bringing about those changes. But these changes take time, and in the meantime political parties have to balance idealism against electoral reality.
In any case, this situation is not entirely analogous to those situations. It is not in fact good policy to encourage people to come to Australia by boat, or to allow unrestricted entry to those who do, even if they claim to be refugees. Mandatory detention of boat arrivals was introduced by the Keating government, and for good reasons, not just out of fear of an electoral backlash.
I greatly admire Paul Howes, but I don’t think he’s speaking for the bulk of his members in taking this line, as that article in fact acknowledges. If and when he gets into Parliament, he will find out the political reality of this issue soon enough.
Gillard has been critical of the private companies running detention centres especially villawood. It is Labor Party policy to return these centres to immigration dept control.
I reckon that is one sure change, of course the Libs will squeal about more public servants.
There is a member of the Nicaraguan Chamber of Deputies called
Stanford Montgomery Cash Dash
He should have joined the Liberal Party.
Any bets on Tony et al in linking mental health issues with those people held in dentention sometime soon?…mmmmmmm maybe not
[The Australian working class has always had conservative views on immigration.]
I think this is an over-simplification. It is probably more accurate to say that in general, Australians as a whole have conservative views on immigration, and that regardless of social class, Australians are susceptible to nationalist and in some cases even overtly racist appeals that rely on creating anxiety among voters.
The villains in the politics of immigration are Hansonite Conservatives, who are very happy to use fear, lies, distortions, malice and ignorance to try to foster political support. Going as far back as Al Grassby, voices on the right have been willing to use this issue for political purposes. For the most part, the leadership of the Liberal party has eschewed such tactics, but John Howard changed this for the sake of his own electoral chances in 2001. It is now an article of faith among Liberals that they can make political gains by exploiting this issue, no matter the exaggerations, dishonesty and cynicism that is involved. To their shame, the leaders of the Liberal Party, in order to try to rebuild electoral support, are resurrecting the worst of the Howard legacy.
Still, moaning about the Liberals is not going to take the heat out of the politics of Asylum-Seekers, and the Government needs to find a position that blunts the Liberals’ attacks.
This is an issue that will take constant work. There is no easy fix. It is sad to say that this is mostly a political problem. It is a great pity, but a big part of the actions the Government will have to take will also be political. But here are some suggestions:
Create a Commissioner for Refugees and Asylum-Seekers, with the authority to manage all refugee arrivals and the housing, assessment and re-settlement or return of asylum-claimants;
Expansion of the Christmas Island facilities, so that most “processing” of boat people can occur off-shore while ensuring that people are not detained in inhumane or inadequate circumstances;
Renewed rejection of Temporary Protection Visas
Maybe I am wrong about all this. But when the choice is succumbing to the bigotry and deceit of the Liberals, or trying to find a dignified path through this issue, I think you have to resist the bigotry. Capitulation to the Liberals is just untenable…..but I am keen to see what the Government can come up with as an alternative.
White Australia-supporting workers did so because they truly believed that non-whites should be paid less than whites for performing the same work. In such a situation white workers’ jobs would logically be at risk.
White Australia-opposing bosses did so for exactly the same reasons…
[It is probably more accurate to say that in general, Australians as a whole have conservative views on immigration, and that regardless of social class, Australians are susceptible to nationalist and in some cases even overtly racist appeals that rely on creating anxiety among voters.]
Of course that’s true, but historically it was the labour movement that led the push for White Australia, and then fought until the 1950s to retain it. There were of course economic reasons for this – some employers really did want to bring in cheap Asian labour to break the unions and drive down wages.
[the Government needs to find a position that blunts the Liberals’ attacks. ]
Only the full restoration of Howard’s policy would do that, and then of course they’d campaign on “we were right all along.” I agree that Labor should not do that.
[Create a Commissioner for Refugees and Asylum-Seekers, with the authority to manage all refugee arrivals and the housing, assessment and re-settlement or return of asylum-claimants;]
I realise you’re trying, but what difference would that make? The law under which such a person operated would still have to be determined by Parliament, and the outcomes would still be the responsibility of the government.
The interesting thing is how Gillard has changed the “atmospherics” already. The Press Gallery are now waiting with baited breath to see what she has to say.
Even if she just restates that Labor have changed the criteria for skilled migrants and for foreign students, reducing the immigration intake, this will get news headlines. Headlines that were absent the first time around.
Maybe a policy for supporting communities with high refugees numbers would be good? Supporting the communities not refugees would sooth some tensions?
ruawake
[Maybe a policy for supporting communities with high refugees numbers would be good?
Supporting the communities not refugees would sooth some tensions? ]
Simple but effective.
rua – I was thinking that the other day. Her ascension to the leadership has most definitely been a game-changer.
The other thing that occurred to me was to question whether the media disliked Rudd as much as his colleagues apparently did and therefore whether the bad press Labor were getting was specifically about Rudd, rather than Labor as a whole.
Or maybe that’s just wishing thinking, given we are hurtling towards an election …
[We are a nation of immigrants]
[I’m getting quite tired of hearing this….if we are in fact a nation of immigrants, then why are so many immigrants getting tired of the immigration rate?]
[Our population is made up of 75%-80% native born Australians, and has done during any 12 month period since Federation.]
I’m not sure why the statemnet of a fact tires you. Australia is a nation built on immigration. Julia Gillard is an immigrant and unless your name is Djaggamurra, so are you.
You make a statement about people becoming tired about the immigration rate, how do you know this? And even if it is true, I suspect it has more to do with congested cities than immigration per se.
As for fear of boat people/immigration, it is an irrational fear. It’s real, but irrational.
And just like a parent teaches a child that there’s nothing to fear from the dark, by holding the child’s hand in the darkened bedroom and walking around and touching everything they can to show there’s nothing there that isn’t there during the day or when the light is on; so to can a leader show a nation fearful of something, irrationally, that there, too, is nothing to fear.
Just because it is that way doesn’t mean it’s right or has to be that way. If we believed that women would still be chattles, Africans would still be enslaved and many other unnacceptable situations, that were considered very acceptable, even desirable, would still be with us.
[As for fear of boat people/immigration, it is an irrational fear. It’s real, but irrational.]
]It’s only water
In a stranger’s tear
Looks are deceptive
But distinctions are clear
A foreign body
And a foreign mind
Never welcome
In the land of the blind]
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dbwQ0Wy3ljQ
Phillip Adams had some interesting comments to make today. whilst I understand his sentiments I think he is being a bit dramatic and overly sentimental in his approach. surely the installation of Abbott would be worse than Howard? does he not accept the role of the same backroom people who installed Rudd over Beazley. I thought this comment was revealing:
“”Rudd and I talked regularly. The last time we spoke he was urging me to resign from The Australian to protest its editorial line, advice I declined to accept.””
Second Aristotle. Squiggle, that is just an ignorant comment. This page is worth a look: http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/04fifty.htm
[Migration has had a very significant effect on Australia’s population. At the end of World War II, Australia’s population was just over 7 million, with around 90 per cent born in Australia.
At the time of the 2006 Census, Australia’s population was 19.9 million, with nearly one in four people living in Australia born overseas. Some 45 per cent of all Australians were born overseas or have at least one parent who was born overseas. Of those born overseas, the United Kingdom is the largest overseas-born group (23.5 percent), followed by New Zealand (8.8 percent), China (excluding SARs and Taiwan Province) (4.7 percent) and Italy (4.5 percent).]
And that’s just the post-war stuff. By any comparative measure, Australia is an immigrant nation. Our immigration rate is what all post-war economic developments have been built on. If people like the increasing wealth and economic strength of Australia, they need to understand and live with how it is created. It doesn’t make sense for Liberal voters to be all about the economic development and closed borders. Historically, in Australia, the two are incompatible.
Think of Howard’s approach to immigration. When he got into power he immediately slashed the intake, something that he had been railing about since 1988. When he realised that this was incompatible with everything else he wanted to do, he jacked it back up to record levels. He did this at the urging of business and policy advisers who told him that his approach was unsustainable. One after another his business mates told him they needed a bit more labour. Policy advisers told him there were shortages among health workers and in other areas. The university system needed more overseas students after his funding cuts. In his first year in office, Howard cut immigration to about 70,000. In his last, it was about 150,000. And that’s not accounting for Kiwis or 457 visas.
Another thing to bear in mind is that although 45% of Australians have a foreign born parent, 2/3s of this is from the UK, Ireland and NZ. So if people are truly concerned about the long term affects of immigration, they should really be focussing their attention on how many millions of Brits came to Australia in its greatest period of growth, and how many Brits and Kiwis are still coming to live and holiday here. Unless, of course, immigration is not really the worry…
Phillip Adams is striving for relevance, as he has been for at least a decade.
Sorry to be late to the party, but the LNP has chosen Malcolm Cole to be the candidate for Moreton? Ha ha har de har har! The bloke is a nice enough but he’s as thick as two bricks, sandwiched between sheets of gal and wrapped in kevlar. Nothing will penetrate his brain except for the pernicious influence of Santo Santoro, who is both dumb and nasty. The LNP truly is the last bastion of the feeble-minded.
Aristotle @ 259
[Aristotle
Posted Saturday, July 3, 2010 at 11:19 am | Permalink
Julia’s handling of this issue will be even more interesting than the mining solution. The mining issue always had an economic solution through negotiation. There’s no such solution with boats.
She can and should use the same argument she used with the mining tax dispute.
IE This has split the nation for two months and needs to be resolved.
EG
“This issue (boat people) has split the nation for ten years now and this needs to end. So today I’m appointing Mr/ Mrs/Ms whoever to look at this issue and come up with sensible recommendations so that once and for all we take this issue out of the political debate. Everyone will be able to have their say and eveyone’s views will be listened to and acknowledged. I encourage the opposition to join in this on a bi-partisan basis.
We are a nation of immigrants and this is what has built the strength of the country and we need to ensure that that continues, but at a pace and manner of our choosing.”]
She should appoint Hawke, Fraser & a prominent, successful Vietnamese former ‘boat person’. i.e. the 2 political leaders who chose to NOT turn refugees into a ‘wedge’, and one of the Australians who has unarguably made Australia a ‘better’ place.
THAT would be the type of initiative that would be a real ‘game changer’! 🙂 While the ‘ute driving tradies’ might disregard Fraser they would listen to Hawke. And it is a bit hard to ignore the work ethic and success of many of our new Vietnamese citizens.
I can’t see why either Hawke Fraser or *insert name of successful refugee here* would decline. 😛
[The villains in the politics of immigration are Hansonite Conservatives]
The real villains in politics are those that took Australia’s natural capacity to be welcoming to migration, and ramped up immigration to the record levels seen recently.
The villains (politicians) assumed that our capacity to absorb migration is infinite, that no amount can be too high, and that a larger Australia will be a better Australia simply because it is bigger
Why is it that the only way to be welcoming to immigrants via record levels?
The problem for our politicians, is that it is possible to be welcoming to migrants, to reject racisim, and still understand that 180,000 is too many, too soon, too quickly.
Well, that’s pretty obvious. Immigration is a good thing when it’s you getting in. But once you’re past the barrier it’s not nearly as attractive a concept. People are selfish – it’s no more complicated than that.
[The real villains in politics are those that took Australia’s natural capacity to be welcoming to migration, and ramped up immigration to the record levels seen recently.]
Yes
As Scott Morisson points out, the highest net immigration was under the last 3 years of the Howard Govt.
Blow it out your arse, Mr Squiggle.
Settler arrival figures
Settler Arrival Numbers Net Permanent migration
1998-1999 84 100 49 000
1999-2000 92 300 51 200
2000-2001 107 400 60 800
2001-2002 88 900 40 700
2002-2003 93 900 43 500
2003-2004 111 600 52 500
2004-2005 123 400 60 800
2005-2006 131 600 63 700
2006-2007 140 100 68 000
2007-2008 149 400 72 400
2008-2009 158 021 77 000
Major source countries
July 2008 to June 2009 settler arrivals, by country of birth
Arrivals % Variation
New Zealand 33 034 19.7%
United Kingdom 21 567 -7.0%
India 16 909 10.3%
China (excludes SARs and Taiwan) 14 935 14.9%
Philippines 5 619 2.9%
Iraq 4 008 79.9%
Sri Lanka 3 918 11.3%
Malaysia 3 261 11.9%
Burma (Myanmar) 2 931 17.1%
[New Zealand 33 034 19.7%]
Time to invade NZ. 😉
Time to invade NZ
They’ve already won!
Pancho,
Good research, as follows:
[At the time of the 2006 Census, Australia’s population was 19.9 million, with nearly one in four people living in Australia born overseas].
My assertion in the above post is that 75-80% of Australians are born here.
In Short, I am confused as to your point. Do you agree with what I am saying?
Australia is not a nation of immigrants.
We are, 3 out of every 4 of us, born here in Australia.
I don’t want to be surrounded by a political paradigm that is based on such an inept understanding or our history or what has built our nation.
Australia is a primariliy a nation of native-born Australians. We have a long history of welcoming immigrants and in recent years, this nature has been taken for granted by our political leaders who feel little need to protect our way of life.
The Government is half-pregnant on boaties.
The result is that all those who want it to be either pregnant or barren are unhappy with the Government. People prepared to change their votes on the issue have long-gone to either the Greens or the Coalition.
The Government appears to have four broad options:
(1) Mimic the Opposition’s policies and programs so there is no difference.
(2) Go humane so there is a clear difference.
(3) Remain half-pregnant but with some tinkering at the edges. (The tinkering is a silly approach really; they will still be half-pregnant and they still satisfy no-one with any real interest in the issue and they still lose skin because it looks shonky).
(4) Adopt a completely new immigration policy, with boaties as a subset. Of course this could upset other horses in the immigration paddock. But it at least offers the chance to substantially reframe the debate. Without that Labor remains on a hiding to nothing with this issue.
My guess is that Gillard will try to finess the half-pregnant approach. I can’t see how this will be anything other than a lose.
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/02key.htm
The highest number of settlers to arrive in any one year since World War II was 185 099 in 1969-70. The lowest number in any one year was 52 752 in 1975-76.
Today, nearly one in four of Australia’s 21 million people were born overseas. For the past three financial years, the United Kingdom has been the major source country for migrants.
The number of settlers arriving in Australia between July 2008 and June 2009 totalled 158 021. They came from more than 200 countries. Most were born in New Zealand (16.2 percent), the United Kingdom (13.63 percent), India (10.9 percent), China (10.0 percent) and South Africa (4.5 percent).
Today’s migration program recognises that business globalisation has resulted in a major flow of people who often do not intend to stay in Australia permanently.
And of the people who do decide to stay here permanently, half are native English speakers from NZ and the UK/Ireland, close to a fifth are people from India who speak English fluently as a second language, another fifth are South Africans who speak English as a first or second language, another fifth are from China who speak English as a second language or have family here, and the rest are made up of people from the Phillipines, Sri Lanka and Malaysia, who also speak English as a second language.
The poor desperates from Iraq, Afghanistan and Sudan are not a farking problem.
Like it or not, playing dog whistle politics on asylum seekers works for Abbott, indeed it’s really only his remaining electoral trump card, so Julia really has to be seen to be getting tough on boat people(however repugnent that is to Phillip Adams and the “cafe late” set of inner city Sydney and Melbourne).
I have just posted about the Legislative Council on the Victorian Election thread.
It is not the quantity that arrive from any one country. It is the quality.
That’s poor Mr Squiggle. History does not start and stop today. “A nation of immigrants” is one where there are 50% + 1 foreign born residents.
Case in point: the United States.
Foreign born population: about 11%
Is the US not a nation of immigrants? Is is about 40% as much “a nation of immigrants” as Australia is based on this figure?
“Good research” requires a bit of analysis as well.
Aristotle,
You seem to be altering the meaning of the word ‘immigrant’.
I use the word in the sense most dictionaries define the word eg ‘A person who leaves one country to settle permanently in another’
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/immigrant
I generally enjoy your posts, but I think if you include people as immigrants if some ancestor was born overseas, this discussion won’t get very far.
Whoops, let me try that again.
“A nation of immigrants” is NOT one where there are 50% + 1 foreign born residents.