Is Australia racist? 10 stunning stats

[spurgistan]

The answer to your question is no. But wouldn't you say this is more of an immigration discussion rather than a racist discussion?

I could see these statistics being similar to a poll if it were given in the US.

Since when is a lot of opposition to immigrants not expressed rather racistly? You have anti-Irish sentiment followed by anti-Asian sentiment followed by anti-Hispanic sentiment here in the US, roughly tracking when different races (and yes the Irish and Italians weren't considered to be proper white at the time) roughly tracking when different racial groups immigrated to the US.

It probably happens, but to say that opposition to immigration is rooted in racism is inaccurate.

Well, no, it is, for the reasons I just mentioned. People tend to hate whoever's new. I'm not saying one causes the other, but they're clearly related. It's not like Americans were upset about immigration while it was white northern Europeans moving here.

Read This Post

Blanket statements are almost never true. Like saying all Trump supporters are all racists, or all liberals are crazy, etc...

You are making a blanket statement. If you think any opposition to immigration equals racism, then we cannot continue to have a logical discussion. All opposition is not based off the color of one's skin, or the nationality of that person, or etc.

I am opposed to illegal immigration. Does that make me a racist? According to your logic, it does.

#1 opposition to illegal immigration is different from anti-immigration, so, no? There are plenty of racist voices who also rail against illegal immigration, and that's a whole different argument, but the immigration system needs fixing for a lot of reasons, chiefly that it makes exploiting workers even easier than it already is. Also it takes forever to get a visa the legal way, so they should probably change that. A wall won't make immigration easier to do the right way.

#2 I'm not making a blanket statement, just saying that the Venn diagram of "prominent anti-immigration voices" and "says racist stuff" has a whole lot of cross-over, historically and in contemporary times. Big enough where it might be good for your movement to more publically distance yourself from those types of figures and say how you're different. For an allegory, every time somebody says their socialist some galaxy brain asks them how they would inevitably turn us into Venezuela, because the Venn diagram of "socialist state" and "broad economic failure" has some crossover, no? Socialists mostly don't deny that Venezuela under Maduro is (a type of) socialist state and is indisputably in economic collapse, they explain why underlying situations in Venezuela are different. You don't get far in an argument by outright denying the snakes in your ranks.

[jimboston]

I see no one can answer the question posed.
should be a simple question to answer. ..

why cannot you all answer it..?

--> let's use a island as an example..
let's say the island is only 45 square miles total & can only sustain a population of 10,000 people, if tomorrow 250,000 new African immigrants try to move to that island.. should that island close it's borders & refuse entry of those 250,000 African immigrants?
if they do refuse entry of those African immigrants, you would consider that racist.. ?

only thing I just did was prove my point..

How come you expect people to newer your questions, but you just seem to miss questions directed at you?

[jimboston]

I see no one can answer the question posed.
should be a simple question to answer. ..

In one sense it is an absurd question (as others have pointed out). No population is designed to support a X fold increase in the population at once. In the first place no population has a point of entry that can support the migration of its entire population at once, never mind a large multiple of that population. Second there is no place to house them once they get there, or feed them even.

So when you get to the actual non absurd numbers (say 10% of the population) the arguments are still valid but people can easily miss the implications of the numbers, especially when immigration is never a "one shot" situation (and 10 years of 10% quickly becomes ... I'm not going to answer that because people will argue about whether I should use compounding or not).

no problem .. if the amount of people requires you to avoid the question.. ok

I will rephrase the question so everyone will stop writing paragraphs explaining why they are refusing to answer it..

--> if there is a island that is 45 square miles & can sustain a population of 10,000 & the current population of that island is 9,200 people..
and let's say 500 immigrants try to come to that island every year.. year after year after year... with no signs of them stopping
should the island refuse those immigrants entry once the hit their sustainability level of 10,000.. ?

and when they do refuse entry to immigrants when they realize they are going to go over their sustainability level... does that make them Racist?

“sustainability level”

Are you becoming an environmentalist?

What’s this sustainability level you are talking about?

[NomadPatriot]

I see no one can answer the question posed.
should be a simple question to answer. ..

In one sense it is an absurd question (as others have pointed out). No population is designed to support a X fold increase in the population at once. In the first place no population has a point of entry that can support the migration of its entire population at once, never mind a large multiple of that population. Second there is no place to house them once they get there, or feed them even.

So when you get to the actual non absurd numbers (say 10% of the population) the arguments are still valid but people can easily miss the implications of the numbers, especially when immigration is never a "one shot" situation (and 10 years of 10% quickly becomes ... I'm not going to answer that because people will argue about whether I should use compounding or not).

no problem .. if the amount of people requires you to avoid the question.. ok

I will rephrase the question so everyone will stop writing paragraphs explaining why they are refusing to answer it..

--> if there is a island that is 45 square miles & can sustain a population of 10,000 & the current population of that island is 9,200 people..
and let's say 500 immigrants try to come to that island every year.. year after year after year... with no signs of them stopping
should the island refuse those immigrants entry once the hit their sustainability level of 10,000.. ?

and when they do refuse entry to immigrants when they realize they are going to go over their sustainability level... does that make them Racist?

“sustainability level”

Are you becoming an environmentalist?

What’s this sustainability level you are talking about?

there is no point in debating someone who cannot comprehend simple words like Sustainability....

[jimboston]

“sustainability level”

Are you becoming an environmentalist?

What’s this sustainability level you are talking about?

there is no point in debating someone who cannot comprehend simple words like Sustainability....

I understand the term perfectly. I’m wondering if you do.

In other threads you’ve bashed environmental ideas likes global warming/climate change, and suggested these can’t be impacted by mankind.

Here however you acknowledge that an “island”... presumably either the US or Australia has a ‘limit’ to the number of people that “island” can sustainably support. Thereby you are acknowledging the fact that mankind does have an impact on the environment.

Is your claim that mankind can only impact the local environment and not the global environment?

Isn’t that ridiculous? By impacting the local environment are you not by definition also impacting the global environment?

Or somehow ‘mother-earth’ magically washes it all away when you scale up to the global level?

[NomadPatriot]

“sustainability level”

Are you becoming an environmentalist?

What’s this sustainability level you are talking about?

there is no point in debating someone who cannot comprehend simple words like Sustainability....

I understand the term perfectly. I’m wondering if you do.

In other threads you’ve bashed environmental ideas likes global warming/climate change, and suggested these can’t be impacted by mankind.

Here however you acknowledge that an “island”... presumably either the US or Australia has a ‘limit’ to the number of people that “island” can sustainably support. Thereby you are acknowledging the fact that mankind does have an impact on the environment.

Is your claim that mankind can only impact the local environment and not the global environment?

Isn’t that ridiculous? By impacting the local environment are you not by definition also impacting the global environment?

Or somehow ‘mother-earth’ magically washes it all away when you scale up to the global level?

like I said...

there is no point in debating someone who cannot comprehend simple words like Sustainability....

[jimboston]

“sustainability level”

Are you becoming an environmentalist?

What’s this sustainability level you are talking about?

there is no point in debating someone who cannot comprehend simple words like Sustainability....

I understand the term perfectly. I’m wondering if you do.

In other threads you’ve bashed environmental ideas likes global warming/climate change, and suggested these can’t be impacted by mankind.

Here however you acknowledge that an “island”... presumably either the US or Australia has a ‘limit’ to the number of people that “island” can sustainably support. Thereby you are acknowledging the fact that mankind does have an impact on the environment.

Is your claim that mankind can only impact the local environment and not the global environment?

Isn’t that ridiculous? By impacting the local environment are you not by definition also impacting the global environment?

Or somehow ‘mother-earth’ magically washes it all away when you scale up to the global level?

like I said...

there is no point in debating someone who cannot comprehend simple words like Sustainability....

So you’re advising me that there’s no point in debating you. Got it.

[D3A7H]

"Sustainability" is economic as well as environmental in this analogy. So Nomad's point is valid. As to whether or not Australia is racist, i won't judge. I will share that i work with a number of Burmese (they do call it Burma not Myanmar) refugees who were forced to flee ethnic and religious oppression. Homes and property destroyed by the military who forced them into Thailand. One told me of spending 6 years in a refugee camp during which he applied for asylum to both Australia and Canada and was denied. He applied to the US and was accepted. Good for him and good for the US.

[jimboston]

"Sustainability" is economic as well as environmental in this analogy. So Nomad's point is valid. As to whether or not Australia is racist, i won't judge. I will share that i work with a number of Burmese (they do call it Burma not Myanmar) refugees who were forced to flee ethnic and religious oppression. Homes and property destroyed by the military who forced them into Thailand. One told me of spending 6 years in a refugee camp during which he applied for asylum to both Australia and Canada and was denied. He applied to the US and was accepted. Good for him and good for the US.

How is it economic?

There’s no implied economic factor in his posts... he’s talking about an “Island” that can only sustain a certain number of people.
The economic factors are related to the environmental factors... if they aren’t tied to environmental factors then you can increase them.

So your cover for NP is bullshit.

[NomadPatriot]

"Sustainability" is economic as well as environmental in this analogy. So Nomad's point is valid. As to whether or not Australia is racist, i won't judge. I will share that i work with a number of Burmese (they do call it Burma not Myanmar) refugees who were forced to flee ethnic and religious oppression. Homes and property destroyed by the military who forced them into Thailand. One told me of spending 6 years in a refugee camp during which he applied for asylum to both Australia and Canada and was denied. He applied to the US and was accepted. Good for him and good for the US.

at least D3a7h understands the concept of Sustainability being used in this context...


but like I said...

there is no point in debating someone who cannot comprehend simple words like Sustainability....

and people will write paragraphs explaining why they won't answer .. attacking the person asking the question & trying to change the subject to something else..

the question posed destroys the notion that all countries ( or in this case the Island ) should allow immigration regardless of the situation, otherwise they are racist.. and everyone knows it..
so they avoid answering..

[tzor]

I will rephrase the question so everyone will stop writing paragraphs explaining why they are refusing to answer it..

--> if there is a island that is 45 square miles & can sustain a population of 10,000 & the current population of that island is 9,200 people..
and let's say 500 immigrants try to come to that island every year.. year after year after year... with no signs of them stopping
should the island refuse those immigrants entry once the hit their sustainability level of 10,000.. ?

Now we are getting into a proper question, although I'mgoing to ignore the area because this thread is dertived from Australia which, actually much like the US, has the population mostly along the coastline. The current island is 92% of capacity (and thus not much on the food export). Assuming that the population is stable I think a no immigration policy is in order; even one yearof 500 is far too dangerous given the potential for a bad crop year to cause fluxuations in food production.

I will be the first to admit I am no expert on sustainability policy, but I would put it at a much lower percentage of the output production of the nation. Most nations are not near their limits, but there are other considerations to consider, such as the potential to increase or decrease the GNP. (Contrary to what is commonly believed, getting people to "do the work no one else wants to do" is just a half hearted way of implementing slavery keeping the free market from determining proper wages for work.) Sensible immigration policy matches the immigrants to the needs of the nation.

[D3A7H]

"Sustainability" is economic as well as environmental in this analogy. So Nomad's point is valid. As to whether or not Australia is racist, i won't judge. I will share that i work with a number of Burmese (they do call it Burma not Myanmar) refugees who were forced to flee ethnic and religious oppression. Homes and property destroyed by the military who forced them into Thailand. One told me of spending 6 years in a refugee camp during which he applied for asylum to both Australia and Canada and was denied. He applied to the US and was accepted. Good for him and good for the US.

How is it economic?

There’s no implied economic factor in his posts... he’s talking about an “Island” that can only sustain a certain number of people.
The economic factors are related to the environmental factors... if they aren’t tied to environmental factors then you can increase them.

So your cover for NP is bullshit.

environmental sustainability is not specified here. you just read that into it.
I'm not covering for NP, just sharing my thoughts.

[NomadPatriot]

I will rephrase the question so everyone will stop writing paragraphs explaining why they are refusing to answer it..

--> if there is a island that is 45 square miles & can sustain a population of 10,000 & the current population of that island is 9,200 people..
and let's say 500 immigrants try to come to that island every year.. year after year after year... with no signs of them stopping
should the island refuse those immigrants entry once the hit their sustainability level of 10,000.. ?

Now we are getting into a proper question, although I'mgoing to ignore the area because this thread is dertived from Australia which, actually much like the US, has the population mostly along the coastline. The current island is 92% of capacity (and thus not much on the food export). Assuming that the population is stable I think a no immigration policy is in order; even one yearof 500 is far too dangerous given the potential for a bad crop year to cause fluxuations in food production.

I will be the first to admit I am no expert on sustainability policy, but I would put it at a much lower percentage of the output production of the nation. Most nations are not near their limits, but there are other considerations to consider, such as the potential to increase or decrease the GNP. (Contrary to what is commonly believed, getting people to "do the work no one else wants to do" is just a half hearted way of implementing slavery keeping the free market from determining proper wages for work.) Sensible immigration policy matches the immigrants to the needs of the nation.

i agree most nations might not be near their limits.. but the goal is not to get to the limit or near too it. .. it is to stay sustainable. if a nation gets to within say 5-10% of their sustainability limit they do not have much room for error. .and a simple Hurricane, Earthquake or hostile action by another nation could be devastating

also .. no nation should be forced to go into debt in order to help those not of that nation... and considering 99% of the nations are currently running on a National Debt. anything spent is debt. .so anything spent on immigration or refugees is being paid for with debt..

if a nation has a surplus of money, a surplus of space & a surplus of resources and are willing to allow immigration. .then they are in the position to do good for refuges or those immigrants who need help.

inferring that if a nation will not allow immigration then they are racist just shows there is no other argument they can come up with... and they have no concept of what racism is..

[NomadPatriot]

apply this island idea to the game Civilization.

you have a island 45 square miles. .population of 9200 people.. and you have it in sync. everything is working perfectly. but you only have room / resources for 800 more people. no more room to build anything . and of course you do not want to hit you max capacity every civilization needs a surplus.

then the game suddenly starts dumping 500 more people on your island every month of game play..
how soon will you a become a Banana Republic and be forced to sacrifice key things needed for society in order to accommodate the new population numbers and how quickly will you loose the game..?

[jimboston]

"Sustainability" is economic as well as environmental in this analogy. So Nomad's point is valid. As to whether or not Australia is racist, i won't judge. I will share that i work with a number of Burmese (they do call it Burma not Myanmar) refugees who were forced to flee ethnic and religious oppression. Homes and property destroyed by the military who forced them into Thailand. One told me of spending 6 years in a refugee camp during which he applied for asylum to both Australia and Canada and was denied. He applied to the US and was accepted. Good for him and good for the US.

at least D3a7h understands the concept of Sustainability being used in this context...


but like I said...

there is no point in debating someone who cannot comprehend simple words like Sustainability....

and people will write paragraphs explaining why they won't answer .. attacking the person asking the question & trying to change the subject to something else..

the question posed destroys the notion that all countries ( or in this case the Island ) should allow immigration regardless of the situation, otherwise they are racist.. and everyone knows it..
so they avoid answering..

I don’t avoid answering.

i’m perfectly fine with countries and borders and limited immigration... with rule and penalties.

I think BOTH the left and right are wrong on the current immigration issue, and i’m happy to give my opinion as to where they are wrong.


... at the same time i’m using your stupid anti-immigration theoretical situation, and YOUR WORDS, to demonstrate how you seem conflicted about the idea of sustainability.

You seem to think it means different things depending on which thread the word is used in.

[mrswdk]

apply this island idea to the game Civilization.

you have a island 45 square miles. .population of 9200 people.. and you have it in sync. everything is working perfectly. but you only have room / resources for 800 more people. no more room to build anything . and of course you do not want to hit you max capacity every civilization needs a surplus.

then the game suddenly starts dumping 500 more people on your island every month of game play..
how soon will you a become a Banana Republic and be forced to sacrifice key things needed for society in order to accommodate the new population numbers and how quickly will you loose the game..?

That's not how Civilization works.

[spurgistan]

apply this island idea to the game Civilization.

you have a island 45 square miles. .population of 9200 people.. and you have it in sync. everything is working perfectly. but you only have room / resources for 800 more people. no more room to build anything . and of course you do not want to hit you max capacity every civilization needs a surplus.

then the game suddenly starts dumping 500 more people on your island every month of game play..
how soon will you a become a Banana Republic and be forced to sacrifice key things needed for society in order to accommodate the new population numbers and how quickly will you loose the game..?

That's not how Civilization works.

Seriously, this is a world domination game forum and we should we should know better.

[NomadPatriot]

apply this island idea to the game Civilization.

you have a island 45 square miles. .population of 9200 people.. and you have it in sync. everything is working perfectly. but you only have room / resources for 800 more people. no more room to build anything . and of course you do not want to hit you max capacity every civilization needs a surplus.

then the game suddenly starts dumping 500 more people on your island every month of game play..
how soon will you a become a Banana Republic and be forced to sacrifice key things needed for society in order to accommodate the new population numbers and how quickly will you loose the game..?

That's not how Civilization works.

what do you mean that's not how Civilization works..?

[mrswdk]

That's not how Civilization works.

Seriously, this is a world domination game forum and we should we should know better.

ikr? I nominate NoProblem for a five-day forum ban for crimes against strategy games.

apply this island idea to the game Civilization.

you have a island 45 square miles. .population of 9200 people.. and you have it in sync. everything is working perfectly. but you only have room / resources for 800 more people. no more room to build anything . and of course you do not want to hit you max capacity every civilization needs a surplus.

then the game suddenly starts dumping 500 more people on your island every month of game play..
how soon will you a become a Banana Republic and be forced to sacrifice key things needed for society in order to accommodate the new population numbers and how quickly will you loose the game..?

That's not how Civilization works.

what do you mean that's not how Civilization works..?

You couldn't dump population 'on an island' in Civilization, only into the main cities. And if your cities did suddenly increase in size, you can't 'sacrifice key things' as a trade-off and damage your economy in the process. All that will happen is eventually your cities will get too big for the nearby land to sustain everyone, and the population will start starving and shrinking back down to a level that the nearby land can sustain. Generally a city surrounded by farms will max out at around 30-32 million people and then get stuck. If you artificially inflate a city to 50 million it will just shrink back down to that 30-32m band.

The only 'sacrifice' you might have to make is, if you wanted to try and sustain a bigger population than you are currently able to, replacing workshops and mines with farms and windmills. This would lower your production capabilities but produce more food. But actually, even if you did replace workshops and mines with farms and windmills in order to support a larger city population that wouldn't really matter. Cities with bigger populations can have more specialists and the production/scientific gains you'd get from the specialists would probably at least offset the loss in production from losing your workshops and mines. So you would probably be either a) fine, or b) end up with more effective cities. The general rule with a city on Civilization is that bigger is better.

I'm going to start a Civilization thread.

[NomadPatriot]

That's not how Civilization works.

Seriously, this is a world domination game forum and we should we should know better.

ikr? I nominate NoProblem for a five-day forum ban for crimes against strategy games.

apply this island idea to the game Civilization.

you have a island 45 square miles. .population of 9200 people.. and you have it in sync. everything is working perfectly. but you only have room / resources for 800 more people. no more room to build anything . and of course you do not want to hit you max capacity every civilization needs a surplus.

then the game suddenly starts dumping 500 more people on your island every month of game play..
how soon will you a become a Banana Republic and be forced to sacrifice key things needed for society in order to accommodate the new population numbers and how quickly will you loose the game..?

That's not how Civilization works.

what do you mean that's not how Civilization works..?

You couldn't dump population 'on an island' in Civilization, only into the main cities. And if your cities did suddenly increase in size, you can't 'sacrifice key things' as a trade-off and damage your economy in the process. All that will happen is eventually your cities will get too big for the nearby land to sustain everyone, and the population will start starving and shrinking back down to a level that the nearby land can sustain. Generally a city surrounded by farms will max out at around 30-32 million people and then get stuck. If you artificially inflate a city to 50 million it will just shrink back down to that 30-32m band.

thanks for explaining why illegal immigration is bad for a nation.. .I like the part where millions die off from starvation.
kudos to Ma'amDCk for this awesome reinforcement of the argument illegal immigration destroys a country..

( manipulating your opponent into joining your side.. = classic!)

[mrswdk]

But what would happen if you transported 500 people a day to the middle of the Amazon? Or to Burning Man Festival? Or to Hogwarts?

You still have a lot of questions to answer, NP.

[Dukasaur]

That's not how Civilization works.

Seriously, this is a world domination game forum and we should we should know better.

ikr? I nominate NoProblem for a five-day forum ban for crimes against strategy games.

apply this island idea to the game Civilization.

you have a island 45 square miles. .population of 9200 people.. and you have it in sync. everything is working perfectly. but you only have room / resources for 800 more people. no more room to build anything . and of course you do not want to hit you max capacity every civilization needs a surplus.

then the game suddenly starts dumping 500 more people on your island every month of game play..
how soon will you a become a Banana Republic and be forced to sacrifice key things needed for society in order to accommodate the new population numbers and how quickly will you loose the game..?

That's not how Civilization works.

what do you mean that's not how Civilization works..?

You couldn't dump population 'on an island' in Civilization, only into the main cities. And if your cities did suddenly increase in size, you can't 'sacrifice key things' as a trade-off and damage your economy in the process. All that will happen is eventually your cities will get too big for the nearby land to sustain everyone, and the population will start starving and shrinking back down to a level that the nearby land can sustain. Generally a city surrounded by farms will max out at around 30-32 million people and then get stuck. If you artificially inflate a city to 50 million it will just shrink back down to that 30-32m band.

thanks for explaining why illegal immigration is bad for a nation.. .I like the part where millions die off from starvation.
kudos to Ma'amDCk for this awesome reinforcement of the argument illegal immigration destroys a country..

You guys are talking about a game. In real life things don't work like that.

Immigrants are not just consumers, they are producers, too. In fact, good producers -- immigrants typically are among the hardest workers. Say's Law still works: the more you produce, the more there is to consume. Immigration may come with some short-term headaches, but in the long run is a huge economic benefit.

[mookiemcgee]

But what would happen if you transported 500 people a day to the middle of the Amazon? Or to Burning Man Festival? Or to Hogwarts?

You still have a lot of questions to answer, NP.

There's gonna be alot more than 500 of us storming area 51 next month in the island that is rachel Nevada. Nomad they want you on the front lines!!!

[NomadPatriot]

That's not how Civilization works.

Seriously, this is a world domination game forum and we should we should know better.

ikr? I nominate NoProblem for a five-day forum ban for crimes against strategy games.

apply this island idea to the game Civilization.

you have a island 45 square miles. .population of 9200 people.. and you have it in sync. everything is working perfectly. but you only have room / resources for 800 more people. no more room to build anything . and of course you do not want to hit you max capacity every civilization needs a surplus.

then the game suddenly starts dumping 500 more people on your island every month of game play..
how soon will you a become a Banana Republic and be forced to sacrifice key things needed for society in order to accommodate the new population numbers and how quickly will you loose the game..?

That's not how Civilization works.

what do you mean that's not how Civilization works..?

You couldn't dump population 'on an island' in Civilization, only into the main cities. And if your cities did suddenly increase in size, you can't 'sacrifice key things' as a trade-off and damage your economy in the process. All that will happen is eventually your cities will get too big for the nearby land to sustain everyone, and the population will start starving and shrinking back down to a level that the nearby land can sustain. Generally a city surrounded by farms will max out at around 30-32 million people and then get stuck. If you artificially inflate a city to 50 million it will just shrink back down to that 30-32m band.

thanks for explaining why illegal immigration is bad for a nation.. .I like the part where millions die off from starvation.
kudos to Ma'amDCk for this awesome reinforcement of the argument illegal immigration destroys a country..

You guys are talking about a game. In real life things don't work like that.

Immigrants are not just consumers, they are producers, too. In fact, good producers -- immigrants typically are among the hardest workers. Say's Law still works: the more you produce, the more there is to consume. Immigration may come with some short-term headaches, but in the long run is a huge economic benefit.

it's a 45 square mile island... where are you going to put them..? are you going to force people to tear down their homes so you can build a 500 apartment skyscraper every month..?
good luck accomplishing that feat..

[mrswdk]

What if you took a family house big enough to house 5 people, and filled it with 100 Somalians? I think now we all see why immigration doesn't work.