As Brexit has shown beyond all doubt, the media-political elite regard voters with utter disdain. At best, they regard voters as an annoying inconvenience: an annoyance to be herded to the polls to dutifully rubber-stamp whatever their superiors have deigned to put before them as “election issues”. Otherwise, the elite simply rule as they see fit – none of this “mandate” foolishness.
But the elite have been lording it over us like this for decades. Since the 1970s, endless rafts of “human rights” laws, which only ever seem to constrain the freedom of the rest of us, have been foisted on the populace without ever being put to a vote. Having agreed that they know what’s best, the elite simply pat each other on the back and carry on regardless.
Immigration is another vital policy area where the elite not only never bother to consult the hoi polloi, but actively ignore the clearly-voiced expressed wishes of voters.
At this year’s federal election, there were clear differences in the positions of the two major parties on every significant policy area save immigration on which, except for a few details…the parties were in heated agreement in their support for high migrant intakes, both permanent and temporary, and the associated high population growth.
But political support for large-scale immigration does not tally with voters’ views […] People want immigration cut and slower population growth […]The politicians know what we think. They just act like they don’t
Politicians know that they can ignore voters with impunity, firstly because any politician who dares, in Pauline Hanson’s words, “to say what [we’re] thinking” is immediately slandered as a “racist”. Secondly, the weight of money and influence is squarely behind the mass immigration Ponzi scheme.
The lobbying behind immigration is so strong that both parties have concluded the views of ordinary folk can be ignored. These forces include the bureaucracy […] big business, property developers, the universities and various interest groups, some ethnically based.
Consider the recent report released by the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia, the only aim of which is to support unrestricted inflows of temporary migrants.
The CEDA report not only deceitfully skips over key details, such as temporary compared to permanent migrants, it also blatantly misleads. The CEDA report claims that “the number of temporary migrants is too small to affect outcomes”. This is demonstrably false: temporary migrants make up 16 percent of the total workforce, mostly concentrated in low-wage industries. Such a proportion is clearly enough to affect outcomes.
It is obvious why businesses would endorse the CEDA study. They don’t want the free flow of available workers impeded; indeed, the report recommends labour market testing for positions filled by migrants be ditched.
Businesses have tried to justify their addiction to cheap overseas labour by blaming local “job snobs”. But not only does this ignore what has long been recognised, as far back as Peter Costello’s treasury, that the welfare regime is structured to effectively punish those who take up casual or part-time work; employers give their own game away when they complain that local job applicants are too inexperienced.
“Job snobs” might be bad enough, but “employer snobs” are worse. Too many businesses are simply too lazy or cheap to invest in young job-seekers. The result is the creation of an underclass locked in the vicious cycle of needing experience to get a job, but can’t get a job because they don’t have experience.
Meanwhile, the “economic benefit” of mass immigration is negligible, working out to about $100 per Australian per year. The cultural impact is enormous and not necessarily all beneficial.
There are clearly games being played with the partner visas program that are not necessarily in our interests.
According to population researcher Bob Birrell, there were 40,000 partner visas issued in 2017-18, down from 48,000. And there are at least 80,000 in the queue. These figures compare with about 112,000 marriages in Australia each year…the most generous arrangement among developed economies…
It is not uncommon for recent permanent residents to return to their place of birth to select a partner known to their family or community. On Birrell’s figures, at least one-third of partners enter this way.
theaustralian.com.au/commentary/politicians-ignoring-voters-by-supporting-population-growth/news-story/75507098c2885c8307b30f7e476f0f99
Tell me again how the “great replacement” is just a conspiracy theory.