Unlike Europe, we can still run an immigration program with people who share our values, assimilate easily, and keep the right electable, without the crime, welfare, or demographic disasters
The initial settlers were just that, settlers, not immigrants. Settlers create a new polity in what for them is a wilderness. Immigrants join an already-established polity.
==
This article could have been half as long while still adequately covering its points.
It all boils down to this: Allow immigrants who enter legally, respect the law, and fully assimilate into the fabric of the host society. That is not happening in many host nations.
We are constantly told that immigrants are almost universally a “valuable asset” to the countries receiving them. If they possess such extraordinary value, why are they not even more valuable in their own countries?
The real problem begins when immigrants arrive and try to remake the host nation in the image of the shithole they fled—or demand that the host abandon its own customs, standards, and conventions to accommodate them or their “culture.” Immigration should require adaptation by the immigrant, not unconditional surrender by the host.
Thing is, someone like me would be a plug and play culturally, from a historical perspective. I’m a Protestant Christian, English descended, native English speaker, raised in a common law country, partially raised in England itself actually, so I don’t even have the hang ups about monarchy the average American does.
Under a normal system I would be an obvious choice to assimilate, however that’s why someone like me would have to be excluded if you were trying to weaken the national character of Australia.
The initial settlers were just that, settlers, not immigrants. Settlers create a new polity in what for them is a wilderness. Immigrants join an already-established polity.
==
This article could have been half as long while still adequately covering its points.
I agree.
A question,if I may,what about the Chinese Immigration to Australia?
It all boils down to this: Allow immigrants who enter legally, respect the law, and fully assimilate into the fabric of the host society. That is not happening in many host nations.
We are constantly told that immigrants are almost universally a “valuable asset” to the countries receiving them. If they possess such extraordinary value, why are they not even more valuable in their own countries?
The real problem begins when immigrants arrive and try to remake the host nation in the image of the shithole they fled—or demand that the host abandon its own customs, standards, and conventions to accommodate them or their “culture.” Immigration should require adaptation by the immigrant, not unconditional surrender by the host.
Assimilation may be a myth. I used to think it was possible, but I’m not so sure now. It’s more that both cultures change, often for the worse.
A valid observation.
Thing is, someone like me would be a plug and play culturally, from a historical perspective. I’m a Protestant Christian, English descended, native English speaker, raised in a common law country, partially raised in England itself actually, so I don’t even have the hang ups about monarchy the average American does.
Under a normal system I would be an obvious choice to assimilate, however that’s why someone like me would have to be excluded if you were trying to weaken the national character of Australia.
Not sure many non-Brits want to go to Australia tho