Gothamist.com - "New York's White People Like Arizona's Immigration Law"
New Yorkers of all kinds have been protesting Arizona's new immigration law pretty much since it was announced, and with good reason; the melting pot of America has a reputation for accepting immigrants. A new survey confirms that tradition, with New Yorkers opposing the law by a 2-1 margin. However, the percentage among white people polled was 49-47 for the law. Were guessing they make up a majority of the 52% who want the law here.
Though 78% of blacks and 70% of Latinos were against the law, the poll found that Latinos were more likely to notify authorities if they knew someone was here illegally. Also, 26% of Republicans said they would report an illegal immigrant, compared to just 15% of Democrats. And (Just) 23% of New Yorkers, including one third of Bronx residents, said immigration wasn't a problem in New York.
http://gothamist.com/2010/08/22/new_yorks_white_people_like_arizona.php
Once Again I request that OVP and Maria Fekter not use us Americans to advance mass immigration and destruction of indigenous Europeans. I also demand that she be charged with a "hate crime" for using us in the debate over there. Our broken immigration laws are not something to be envied but rather the result of corrupt politians going against the will of the people. I am also sure the opposition to immigration is much higher, but many people are afraid to say what they really believe.
This also shows the folly of the WKO's biased studies and OVP in general. It is not true that in the United States people with more contact with those of other races and immigrants leads to greater tolerance, but actually the opposite. New York is one of the most racially and culturally diverse states in the USA. Always the more diversity, the less trust and more dislike. One usually must study and understand the issue and have life experiences to form a logical opinion. And as we can see those life experiences and studies produce mostly negative results.
I would also refer you to a Harvard academic study which confirms that diversity destroys trust and creates problems.
http://www.vdare.com/buchanan/070809_putnam.htm
Here is the pure propaganda "study" of the WKO being used against the Austrian people:
"Once again, the Rolles of personal encounters and inter- cultural dialogue was highlighted , as: " Fear comes mainly from the unknown and due to lack of information. "
http://www.live-pr.com/forum-alpbach-zu-migration-und-integration-r1048548047.htm
Friday, August 27, 2010
Wednesday, August 25, 2010
Allied Leaders Were AGAINST MASS IMMIGRATION ! And What is A "NAZI" ?
We often hear the term "NAZI" being used to describe and discredit anyone and everything that is against mass immigration or patriotic. The Left and fake conservatives see World War Two as not a average practical war of bad times, but a political struggle to bring about marxism, mass immigration and cultural immorality and nothing more. This flies in the face of reality when it is examined closely and history is looked at more in depth we see that World war two to most people, was not the pure multi-culturalist and marxist struggle the left and fake conservatives see., but rather that the contemporary concept of "Nazi" and WW2 has become more abstract and politically motivated as most sides of the war were against mass immigration and had values and ideals which are considered "nazi" by the loose standards of today. .
The label seems to transcend cultural and national boundaries. In the united states Mexicans call Sherriff Joe Arapaio a "NAZI" because he enforces the immigration laws and governor Jan Brewer is called a "NAZI" too because she is against mass immigration, even though her father died in WW2. Hey, I am even 100% sure some immigration enthusiast Austrian politicans right now are writing me off as a "Nazi" and won't listen to my arguments. And in Europe Fake conservative parties like the OVP and the usual left also enjoy using the term to demonize the opposition no matter what. They are even using the term right now to actually destroy the indigenous Austrian population by guilt tripping them into being replaced by immigrants.
I know alot of American World War two veterans. My great uncle died at Normandy in 1944 fighting for the Americans. I also had the opportunity to meet many and I can tell you that they are certainly not supporters of mass immigration in any way. Infact, if you told most of these guys that they fought for mass immigration from the third world, the depopulation of Europe and destruction of traditional values and European culture, they would be outraged and insulted. The diverse but generally conservative political opinions of many WW2 veterans is well documented.
When we examine much of the war time ideas and propaganda of the time used to motivate Americans to kill "Nazis" in battle we see almost nothing that says "you are fighting to help Jews", or "you are fighting for the depopulation of Europe, multiculturalism, affirmative action, mass immigration etc.." I wonder how many Americans of the conservative 1940's would actually want to fight if it was suggested that the results of their actions would be that. Infact I was watching an old propaganda reel made for American troops and it says the "Nazis" are actually the ones trying to destroy European culture. In general it seems the attitude an idea of the average allied soldier at the time was that he was being patriotic and winning the war would bring peace and things back to normal. I highly doubt that their vison was the marxist fantasy many say. I am sure the conservative cultural values of many Americans in the 1940's are considered "Nazi" today.
We should also examine the opinions of Allied leaders and their views on mass immigration. Eisenhower commander of American Allied Forces, General Patton, Sir Winston Churchill Churchill the wartime leader of Britain, and Charles Degaulle the leader of the Free French Forces. All of these men resisted the spread of communism in their own nations, bitterly opposed mass immigration and for the most part, the immigration laws were not changed in their country until AFTER they died or retired.
As President Dwight Eisenhower conducted the largest mass deportation of Mexican immigrants in American History in operation WETBACK. Eisenhower made no attempt to change the immigration laws of the united states and did not actively pursue desegregation of the South and disagreed with the Earl Warren court, but merely complied with court order and was heavily criticized by civil rights advocates. Therefore, I highly doubt Eisenhower was motivated to fight and lead the allied forces in World war two by ideas of marxism or multi-culturalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
Winston Churchill tried in vain to manoeuvre the Cabinet into restricting West Indian immigration. “Keep England White” was a good slogan, he told the Cabinet in January 1955. Churchill was the original British immigration restrictionist. He also laid the anti-mass immigration foundations of the British Torie party, a legacy which continued with Enoch Powell, Lady Thatcher, the present David Cameron and other great British conservatives.
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/08/17/5550/
The Cultural and Social Leader of the South against racial integration was Senator Strom Thurmond. He lead the campaign against racial integration and diversity and even ran for president on an anti-racial diversity platform carrying 4 states. He was a decorated WW2 Hero. He received 18 decorations, medals and awards, including the Legion of Merit with Oak Leaf Cluster, Bronze Star with Valor device, Purple Heart, World War II Victory Medal, European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal, Belgium's Order of the Crown and France's Croix de Guerre. During 1954–55 he was president of the Reserve Officers Association. He later retired from the U.S. Army Reserves with the rank of Major General.
At the start of the war, Prime Minister John Curtin (ALP) reinforced the message of the White Australia Policy by saying: "This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race."
However, by the end of World War II, Australia's vulnerability during the war in the Pacific and small population led to policies summarised by the slogan, "Populate or Perish", an ethnocentric slogan that meant "Fill with whites, lest we be filled with yellows".[13] During the war, many non-white refugees, including Malays, Indonesians, and Filipinos, had settled in Australia, but Immigration Minister Arthur Calwell controversially sought to have them all deported.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy
Ian Smith President of White Rhodesia was a British World War Two Fighter Ace and shot down scores of German planes in the battle of Britain. He kept White Rule in Rhodesia and fought communism in Africa for as long as possible.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_aYHnutqDc
1946 government Survey showed 86% of US soldiers were anti-semitic.
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=82592
As we can clearly see, many Allied leaders were against mass immigration and would be on the side of politicians against immigration if they were alive today and against mass immigration and destruction of indigenous Austrian people. It is also clear that the Austrian left and fake conservatives OVP should no longer use the NAZIs as some sort of justification for mass immigration and not helping the indigenous Austrian polulation.
The label seems to transcend cultural and national boundaries. In the united states Mexicans call Sherriff Joe Arapaio a "NAZI" because he enforces the immigration laws and governor Jan Brewer is called a "NAZI" too because she is against mass immigration, even though her father died in WW2. Hey, I am even 100% sure some immigration enthusiast Austrian politicans right now are writing me off as a "Nazi" and won't listen to my arguments. And in Europe Fake conservative parties like the OVP and the usual left also enjoy using the term to demonize the opposition no matter what. They are even using the term right now to actually destroy the indigenous Austrian population by guilt tripping them into being replaced by immigrants.
I know alot of American World War two veterans. My great uncle died at Normandy in 1944 fighting for the Americans. I also had the opportunity to meet many and I can tell you that they are certainly not supporters of mass immigration in any way. Infact, if you told most of these guys that they fought for mass immigration from the third world, the depopulation of Europe and destruction of traditional values and European culture, they would be outraged and insulted. The diverse but generally conservative political opinions of many WW2 veterans is well documented.
When we examine much of the war time ideas and propaganda of the time used to motivate Americans to kill "Nazis" in battle we see almost nothing that says "you are fighting to help Jews", or "you are fighting for the depopulation of Europe, multiculturalism, affirmative action, mass immigration etc.." I wonder how many Americans of the conservative 1940's would actually want to fight if it was suggested that the results of their actions would be that. Infact I was watching an old propaganda reel made for American troops and it says the "Nazis" are actually the ones trying to destroy European culture. In general it seems the attitude an idea of the average allied soldier at the time was that he was being patriotic and winning the war would bring peace and things back to normal. I highly doubt that their vison was the marxist fantasy many say. I am sure the conservative cultural values of many Americans in the 1940's are considered "Nazi" today.
We should also examine the opinions of Allied leaders and their views on mass immigration. Eisenhower commander of American Allied Forces, General Patton, Sir Winston Churchill Churchill the wartime leader of Britain, and Charles Degaulle the leader of the Free French Forces. All of these men resisted the spread of communism in their own nations, bitterly opposed mass immigration and for the most part, the immigration laws were not changed in their country until AFTER they died or retired.
 |
| Eisenhower With Fascist Dictator Franco |
As President Dwight Eisenhower conducted the largest mass deportation of Mexican immigrants in American History in operation WETBACK. Eisenhower made no attempt to change the immigration laws of the united states and did not actively pursue desegregation of the South and disagreed with the Earl Warren court, but merely complied with court order and was heavily criticized by civil rights advocates. Therefore, I highly doubt Eisenhower was motivated to fight and lead the allied forces in World war two by ideas of marxism or multi-culturalism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Wetback
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/08/17/5550/
At the start of the war, Prime Minister John Curtin (ALP) reinforced the message of the White Australia Policy by saying: "This country shall remain forever the home of the descendants of those people who came here in peace in order to establish in the South Seas an outpost of the British race."
However, by the end of World War II, Australia's vulnerability during the war in the Pacific and small population led to policies summarised by the slogan, "Populate or Perish", an ethnocentric slogan that meant "Fill with whites, lest we be filled with yellows".[13] During the war, many non-white refugees, including Malays, Indonesians, and Filipinos, had settled in Australia, but Immigration Minister Arthur Calwell controversially sought to have them all deported.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Australia_policy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_aYHnutqDc
1946 government Survey showed 86% of US soldiers were anti-semitic.
http://www.sanfranciscosentinel.com/?p=82592
As we can clearly see, many Allied leaders were against mass immigration and would be on the side of politicians against immigration if they were alive today and against mass immigration and destruction of indigenous Austrian people. It is also clear that the Austrian left and fake conservatives OVP should no longer use the NAZIs as some sort of justification for mass immigration and not helping the indigenous Austrian polulation.
Green Card My Ass ! Austrians and others must be made Aware !
So Much for Promises - Quotes Re 1965 Immigration Act
Since the 1965 Immigration Act went into effect, more than 30 million immigrants, most from non-European, Third World countries have poured into the United States. Today, most of the U.S. population growth is due to these immigrants, and their offspring. These results contradict promises made to American citizens by the Act's Congressional Sponsors, as revealed in their own words
Senator Edward M. Kennedy (D-MA)
"Out of deference to the critics, I want to comment on … what the bill will not do. First, our cities will not be flooded with a million immigrants annually. Under the proposed bill, the present level of immigration remains substantially the same … Secondly, the ethnic mix of this country will not be upset … Contrary to the charges in some quarters, S.500 will not inundate America with immigrants from any one country or area, or the most populated and economically deprived nations of Africa and Asia. In the final analysis, the ethnic pattern of immigration under the proposed measure is not expected to change as sharply as the critics seem to think. Thirdly, the bill will not permit the entry of subversive persons, criminals, illiterates, or those with contagious disease or serious mental illness. As I noted a moment ago, no immigrant visa will be issued to a person who is likely to become a public charge … the charges I have mentioned are highly emotional, irrational, and with little foundation in fact. They are out of line with the obligations of responsible citizenship. They breed hate of our heritage."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, pp. 1-3)
Senator Robert F. Kennedy (D-NY)
"In fact, the distribution of limited quota immigration can have no significant effect on the ethnic balance of the United States. … Total quota immigration is now 156,782; under the proposed bill, it would rise to 164,482. Even if all these immigrants came from Italy, for example, the net effect would be to increase the number of Italo-Americans by one-tenth of 1 percent of our population this year, and less as our population increases. Americans of Italian extraction now constitute about 4 percent of our population; at this rate, considering our own natural increase, it would take until the year 2000 to increase that proportion to 6 percent. Of course, S.500 would make no such radical change. Immigration from any single country would be limited to 10 percent of the total-16,500-with the possible exception of the two countries now sending more than that number, Great Britain and Germany. But the extreme case should set to rest any fears that this bill will change the ethnic, political, or economic makeup of the United States. … [w]e bar immigration by those individuals who would compete for jobs for which the supply of labor is adequate for the demand … we bar immigration by individuals who have demonstrated that they do not hold such allegiance [to our fundamental precepts of political freedom and democratic government]. … If it is true that those from northern Europe, as individuals, can make greater contributions to this country than can others, then this legislation will bring them here. If the legislation does not bring them here, then the assumptions on which defenders of the present system rely are wholly false. … [S.500] will facilitate the entry of skilled specialists … the level of immigration now proposed is far less than that thought 'assimilable' by the most restrictionist Congress [1924] in our history. … As far as the quota system, it [S.500] increases it about 9,000 and as far as a practical matter, it increases it about 50,000. It is not a large number."(Senate Part 1, Book 2, pp.216-218, 226, 242)
Senator Philip Hart (D-MI)
"… the notion was created that somehow or another, 190 million [the population of the U.S. in 1965] is going to be swallowed up. None of us would want that, this bill does not seek to do it and the bill could not do it."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, p.29)
Senator Hiram Fong (R-HI)
"… the people who have built up America, Anglo-Saxons, and the northern peoples of Europe, are not discriminated against in this bill. … the people from that part of the world [the Asia-Pacific Triangle] probably will never reach 1 percent of the [U.S.] population. … Our cultural pattern will never be changed as far as America is concerned.… It will become more cosmopolitan but still there is that fundamental adherence to European culture. … We feel those people [from northern Europe] who have been preferred in former immigration bills would still be treated fairly. … one of the reasons why the United States was attacked, on December 7, 1941, was because of these exclusionary laws [the 1924 Immigration Act] which had fomented so much bad feeling between the peoples of Japan and the United States."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, pp.72, 119, 120, 144)
Senator Hugh Scott (R-PA)
"I do not think it [S.500] amounts to a serious increase in the number of persons admitted … I have read the statements of the Malthusian pessimists, and they may be right, of course, but I doubt if this bill will really be the cause of crowding the present Americans out of the 50 states … I do not believe an increase of 66,000 opens the door wide."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, p.136)
Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach
"This bill is not designed to increase or accelerate the number of newcomers permitted to come to America. this bill would retain all the present security and health safeguards of the present law. the overall effect of this bill on employment would, first of all, be negligible, and second, that such effect as might be felt would not be harmful, but beneficial. The actual net increase in total immigration under this bill would be about 60,000. Those immigrants who seek employment are estimated at a maximum of 24,000. Our present labor force, however, is 77 million. Statistically or practically, we are talking about an infinitesimal amount; 24,000 is about three one-hundredths of 1 percent of 77 million a good part of even these 24,000 additional workers would not even be competitors for jobs held or needed by Americans. I would expect very little change in the immigration from the Western Hemisphere."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, pp.8, 13-14, 31)
Secretary of State Dean Rusk
"…the maximum allotment of numbers in any one fiscal year could not exceed the sum of all immigration quotas in effect on the date of enactment of the bill, roughly 166,000. Immigration now comes in limited volume and includes a relatively high proportion of older people and persons of high skill and training. The significance of immigration for the United States now depends less on the number than on the quality of the immigrants Under present circumstances our country has a rare opportunity to draw migrants of high intelligence and ability from abroad. I think the average immigration from the Western Hemisphere over the past 5 years has been about 125,000 a year. We do not anticipate a large increase in those nonquota applications The opportunities here in the United States, the opportunities which attract immigration, are the more sophisticated opportunities, for the educated, for the trained, for the industrial worker, for the technician, for those who can enter into a more sophisticated part in our life than they could if they came in without skills and without any training "(Senate Part 1, Book 1, pp. 48, 50, 52)
Secretary of Labor W. Willard Wirtz
"[S.500] would promote the admission of individuals with qualifications and occupations needed in the United States without disturbing the domestic employment situation."(Senate Part 1, Book 1, p. 84)
Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare Anthony J. Cerebrezze
"With the exception of the provisions relating to epilepsy and certain mental conditions this legislation does not alter the qualitative standards for immigration which prevent the entry of those whom we can, in justice and in logic, exclude. It preserves our national security and our domestic welfare; it continues to exclude subversives; it retains the provisions of existing law which makes aliens who become public charges deportable."(Senate Part 12, Book 2, p. 334)
Senator Claiborne Pell (R-RI)
"[S.500] sets the limit of how many people we think are desirable to keep the mix I may be wrong. Maybe there will be a huge surge from India or a huge surge from Africa, but I would tend to doubt it."(Senate Part 2, Book 1, pp. 561,563)
Senator Harrison A. Williams (D-NJ)
"S.500 does not open the gates to all aliens applying for immigration. Any bar to true assimilation is ours, not theirs [the immigrants]. It is how we welcome to our country, not how much they [the immigrants] want to be welcomed."(Senate Part 2, Book 1, pp. 567, 569)
Senator Thomas H. Kuchel (R-CA)
"Under the proposed bill, the total number of immigrants remains approximately the same "(Senate Part 2, Book 1, p. 576)
Senator E. L. (Bob) Bartlett (D-AK)
"The bill does not seek to increase to any great extent the annual number of new immigrants we admit."(Senate Part 2, Book 3, p. 851)
Senator Daniel K. Inouye (D-HI)
"…while the national origins rule will be eliminated in establishing quotas for foreign countries, this does not mean that the bill would permit a floodtide of new immigrants into this country. As a matter of fact, the total number of potential immigrants would not be changed very much."(Senate Part 2, Book 3, p. 853)
Senator Eugene J. McCarthy (D-MN)
"The proposed legislation would not greatly increase the number of immigrants "(Senate Part 2, Book 3, 854)
Senator Pat McNamara (D-MI)
"Total quota numbers available will be only slightly increased."(Senate Part 2, Book 3, p. 855)
Senator Frank E. Moss (D-UT)
"I emphasize that this bill would not attempt to make any drastic changes in our overall immigration numbers."(Senate Part 2, Book 3, p. 856)
Senator William Proxmire (D-WI)
"S.500 does not let down the bars completely It would not substantially increase the total number of immigrants to be admitted to the United States. It would not reduce the security safeguards for keeping out political undesirable. It would not diminish the requirements designed to keep out persons likely to become public charges."(Senate Part 2, Book 3, p. 857)
Nicholas S. Limperis, National Chairman, AHEPA [Greek-American organization] Immigration Legislative Committee
"This bill emphasizes not primarily increased immigration but equality of opportunity for all people to reach this Promised Land."(Senate Part 2, Book 1, p. 381)
Joseph A. L. Errigo, acting chairman
Sons of Italy National Committee
"S.500 does not repeal the McCarran-Walter Act [immigration act of 1952]. It merely amends it. The overall picture outside of the amendment provided by S.500 will remain more or less the same."(Senate Part 2, Book 1, p. 416)
Mike M. Masaoka, Washington representative
Japanese American Citizens League
"…the 1924 exclusion act against just the Japanese contributed to the downfall of the democratic liberal elements in Japan and allowed the militarists, the jingoists, the imperialists to take over and lead Japan on the dreadful path of World War II. none of us should take for granted that S.500 is the ultimate in immigration law let us recognize even this law cannot wipe out the widespread favoritism for Europeans, which has existed in our law."(Senate Part 2, Book 2, pp. 628, 629) "Let's make no mistake about this. This legislation is in the national interests of the United States and not necessarily for other countries "(HR Book 1, p. 222)
Jack Wong Sing, Director,
West Coast District, National Chinese Welfare Council
"Let it not be said that Chinese immigration would be opened. Under the pending proposals, any increase in volume of immigration of the Chinese would still be limited "(Senate Part 2, Book 2, p. 727)
James B. Carey, President
International Union of Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America (IUE) and Secy-Treas. of the AFL-CIO Industrial Union Dept.
"S.500 will do little or nothing to add to unemployment. We estimate that by the fifth year of operation only about 24,000 quota immigrants will have joined the labor force each year. At that time, we will have a labor force of 86 million. The newcomers will constitute three-thousandths of 1 percent of that group of workers we can expect that a good number of these immigrants will bring badly needed skills to this country."(Senate Part 2, Book 1, p. 470)
Secretary of State Dean Rusk
"This bill [HR 2580] itself draws some distinctions in favor of, gives preferences to certain types of people in terms of talent and training It is not one which others have objected to. We haven't had any indication of disagreement on that from abroad, from any government, certainly We are dealing here with a level of immigration that is fully within our ability to absorb, and our needs as a Nation to receive. we do not get the impression that 3 billion people are all at the starting line, waiting to take off to come to this country, juste as soon as the bill is passed."(HR Book 1, pp. 97, 105, 105)
Representative Spark M. Matsunaga (D-HI)
"The administration bill is a revolutionary one, but it is not as revolutionary as some have claimed or believe it to be. It would change the basis for allotting immigrant visas but it does not provide for an overwhelming increase in immigration as some people seem to fear. It provides for a quota increase of less than 8,000. Actual immigration, counting nonquota and quota immigrants, would be increased around 50,000 or roughly 17 percent over current average annual immigration of around 300,000. This is certainly not a throwing open of the floodgates."(HR Book 1, p. 200)
Representative Richard S. Schweiker (R-PA)
"The administration bill favors nations of Latin America and North America. It favors nations of northern Europe."(HR Book 1, p. 204)
Representative John D. Dingell (D-MI)
"The new bill makes no change whatsoever in the safeguards of our present immigration laws which prohibit the admission of Communists, other subversives, security risks, narcotic addicts, and persons with criminal record. It provides controls to protect our domestic labor market."(HR Book 2, p. 407)
Representative Richard L. Ottinger (D-NY)
"This bill emphasizes needed skills whereas existing legislation virtually ignores them."(HR Book 2, p. 417)
Representative Patsy T. Mink (D-HI)
"…this bill is but a step in the right direction. It is estimated that in the total 5-year period 679,663 of the 828,805 persons entering the United States will come from Europe "(HR Book 2, p. 420)
Source of the above Senate quotes Hearings Before the Subcommittee on Immigration and Naturalization, Committee of the Judiciary, United States Senate, Eight-Ninth Congress, First Session, on S.500 to Amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act, and For Other Purposes. Part 1 February/March; Part 2 March/June/July/August 1965 Congressional Information Service, Inc.
Source of House of Representative (HR) quotes Hearing Before Subcommittee No. 1, Committee of the Judiciary, House of Representatives, Eight-Ninth Congress, First Session on H.R. 2580 "To Amend the Immigration and Naturalization Act and For Other Purposes," March/April/May/June 1965. Congressional Information Service, Inc.
Finally, on October 3, at the foot of the Statue of Liberty, in signing H.R. 2580 into law (Public Law 89-236), President Lyndon Johnson stated: “…this is not a revolutionary bill. It does not affect the lives of millions. It will not reshape the structure of our daily lives…” (Congressional Quarterly Almanac, 89th Congress, lst Session, 1965, Volume XXI, p.479, Congressional Quarterly Service, Inc.)
As you can see, Our American politicians lied to us in the same way the Austrian politicians lie to the Austrians today. Austrians please don't be fooled by the lies of your politicians !
Immigrants Destroy Pensions and Social System
Contrary to the belief of Austrian politicians (especially the fake conservative OVP) immigrants cannot save the social sytem and pensions. In every country immigrants are a burden to the system. There is also no obligation for an immigrant to preserve the social system and work to fund pensions for older native Austrians once they are given citizenship and the right to vote. Infact immigrants have shown that they will organize politically to cut programs that help older people who are not of their own group both intentionally and unintentionally. This is apparent in the United states, Germany and other nations when we study the voting trends issues and demographic of other nations.
THIS LONG PIECE from Ron Brownstein on America’s changing political demographics is well worth your while.
An excerpt:
Two of the biggest demographic trends reshaping the nation in the 21st century increasingly appear to be on a collision course that could rattle American politics for decades. From one direction, racial diversity in the United States is growing, particularly among the young. Minorities now make up more than two-fifths of all children under 18, and they will represent a majority of all American children by as soon as 2023, demographer William Frey of the Brookings Institution predicts.
At the same time, the country is also aging, as the massive Baby Boom Generation moves into retirement. But in contrast to the young, fully four-fifths of this rapidly expanding senior population is white. That proportion will decline only slowly over the coming decades, Frey says, with whites still representing nearly two-thirds of seniors by 2040.
These twin developments are creating what could be called a generational mismatch, or a “cultural generation gap” as Frey labels it. A contrast in needs, attitudes, and priorities is arising between a heavily (and soon majority) nonwhite population of young people and an overwhelmingly white cohort of older people. Like tectonic plates, these slow-moving but irreversible forces may generate enormous turbulence as they grind against each other in the years ahead.
Already, some observers see the tension between the older white and younger nonwhite populations in disputes as varied as Arizona’s controversial immigration law and a California lawsuit that successfully blocked teacher layoffs this year at predominantly minority schools. The 2008 election presented another angle on this dynamic, with young people (especially minorities) strongly preferring Democrat Barack Obama, and seniors (especially whites) breaking solidly for Republican John McCain.
Over time, the major focus in this struggle is likely to be the tension between an aging white population that appears increasingly resistant to taxes and dubious of public spending, and a minority population that overwhelmingly views government education, health, and social-welfare programs as the best ladder of opportunity for its children. “Anything to do with children in the public arena is going to generate a stark competition for resources,” Frey says.
http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2010/07/24/the-widening-political-gulf-between-non-white-young-voters-and-white-older-voters/
Pensions May Be Cut in California as Immigrant Community seeks funds for Education and social services - but Schwarzenneger Preserves Pensions
billion budget deficit that won‘t go away, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is robbing Pedro to pay Pablo.
“SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state controller and treasurer decided Monday to delay $2.9 billion a month in payments to school districts and counties sooner than expected so the state can meet debt and pension obligations.
The leaders issued a joint letter notifying state lawmakers of their decision to begin withholding the payments in September instead of October.
The move reflected the limited resources the state has to work with as the impasse over California’s $19 billion budget shortfall has dragged on for nearly two months.
Controller John Chiang has warned that the state could again issue IOUs, perhaps as soon as the end of August.
The Legislature gave authority in February to the three officers to delay $2.5 billion a month in payments to schools and $400 million in monthly payments to counties during October, November and December to help manage cash flow.
The step came on top of a July deferral of $2.5 billion for schools and $700 million for counties….”
Obama Seeks to Loot Retirement Funds and Savings Accounts to Fund healthcare and Education
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3478-obama-administration-plans-to-seize-401k-retirement-accounts
THIS LONG PIECE from Ron Brownstein on America’s changing political demographics is well worth your while.
An excerpt:
Two of the biggest demographic trends reshaping the nation in the 21st century increasingly appear to be on a collision course that could rattle American politics for decades. From one direction, racial diversity in the United States is growing, particularly among the young. Minorities now make up more than two-fifths of all children under 18, and they will represent a majority of all American children by as soon as 2023, demographer William Frey of the Brookings Institution predicts.
At the same time, the country is also aging, as the massive Baby Boom Generation moves into retirement. But in contrast to the young, fully four-fifths of this rapidly expanding senior population is white. That proportion will decline only slowly over the coming decades, Frey says, with whites still representing nearly two-thirds of seniors by 2040.
These twin developments are creating what could be called a generational mismatch, or a “cultural generation gap” as Frey labels it. A contrast in needs, attitudes, and priorities is arising between a heavily (and soon majority) nonwhite population of young people and an overwhelmingly white cohort of older people. Like tectonic plates, these slow-moving but irreversible forces may generate enormous turbulence as they grind against each other in the years ahead.
Already, some observers see the tension between the older white and younger nonwhite populations in disputes as varied as Arizona’s controversial immigration law and a California lawsuit that successfully blocked teacher layoffs this year at predominantly minority schools. The 2008 election presented another angle on this dynamic, with young people (especially minorities) strongly preferring Democrat Barack Obama, and seniors (especially whites) breaking solidly for Republican John McCain.
Over time, the major focus in this struggle is likely to be the tension between an aging white population that appears increasingly resistant to taxes and dubious of public spending, and a minority population that overwhelmingly views government education, health, and social-welfare programs as the best ladder of opportunity for its children. “Anything to do with children in the public arena is going to generate a stark competition for resources,” Frey says.
http://blogs.e-rockford.com/applesauce/2010/07/24/the-widening-political-gulf-between-non-white-young-voters-and-white-older-voters/
Pensions May Be Cut in California as Immigrant Community seeks funds for Education and social services - but Schwarzenneger Preserves Pensions
billion budget deficit that won‘t go away, California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is robbing Pedro to pay Pablo.
“SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state controller and treasurer decided Monday to delay $2.9 billion a month in payments to school districts and counties sooner than expected so the state can meet debt and pension obligations.
The leaders issued a joint letter notifying state lawmakers of their decision to begin withholding the payments in September instead of October.
The move reflected the limited resources the state has to work with as the impasse over California’s $19 billion budget shortfall has dragged on for nearly two months.
Controller John Chiang has warned that the state could again issue IOUs, perhaps as soon as the end of August.
The Legislature gave authority in February to the three officers to delay $2.5 billion a month in payments to schools and $400 million in monthly payments to counties during October, November and December to help manage cash flow.
The step came on top of a July deferral of $2.5 billion for schools and $700 million for counties….”
Obama Seeks to Loot Retirement Funds and Savings Accounts to Fund healthcare and Education
http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/politics/3478-obama-administration-plans-to-seize-401k-retirement-accounts
More Proof Many Foreign Workers are not High quality
More EU Meddling Poses New Health Threat to British People
Mon, 23/08/2010 - 16:16
Not content with interfering with doctors’ traditional working hours and the problems that those rules bring, the European Union has also forced the British Nursing and Midwifery Council (NWC) to stop competency checks on foreign nurses because they are “discriminatory.”
The bizarre ruling, which has forced the NWC to halt all its checks on incoming nurses, was made after it became apparent that too few nurses were able to pass the stringent course to which British nurses are subjected.
According to NWC figures, over the past five years, only 270 of the more than 40,000 nurses from the European Union (including former Soviet Bloc countries such as Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia) who have applied to work in Britain, have been able to complete the stringent qualification tests.
The NWC always insisted that nurses must have worked at least 450 hours in the last three years or go on a refresher course to qualify to work in Britain.
The EU however recently informed the NWC that it was going to sue the nursing standards body for violating the EU’s freedom of movement regulations by its insistence on that rule.
The tests have now been stopped and the rule which demanded a minimum working time experience has also been dropped.
Ironically, British nurses are still subject to these very same rules from which the EU nurses are now exempt, a fact which dramatically underlines the bizarre nature of the EU superstate.
A study released in April this year showed that EU rules on doctors' working hours, the European Working Time Directive (EWTD), had seen hospital sick rates more than double.
Under the rules, doctors have been limited in terms of how long they can work which, in turn, has forced consultants to spend less time on the wards and provide less support to junior doctors.
Dr Hugh McIntyre, from the Conquest Hospital in East Sussex, who led the April 2010 study, was quoted as saying that the “changes in working practice necessary to comply with the EWTD were associated with, and may have contributed to, a detrimental effect on the welfare of doctors in training.”
Dr Andrew Goddard, director of the Royal College of Physicians’ (RCP) medical workforce unit, said in an article of his association’s journal that research “carried out by the RCP supports these findings such as high sickness and vacancies levels across England and Wales.
“We are concerned that this has significant implications for patient safety and the quality of medical training in the UK.”
You can just imagine how great the Philipino Nurses they want to bring into Austria will be. No Competency checks, poorer quality workers and 100,000 or more of them for Austria. ! Just Remember they are better than Austrian Kids of course !
Mon, 23/08/2010 - 16:16
Not content with interfering with doctors’ traditional working hours and the problems that those rules bring, the European Union has also forced the British Nursing and Midwifery Council (NWC) to stop competency checks on foreign nurses because they are “discriminatory.”
The bizarre ruling, which has forced the NWC to halt all its checks on incoming nurses, was made after it became apparent that too few nurses were able to pass the stringent course to which British nurses are subjected.
According to NWC figures, over the past five years, only 270 of the more than 40,000 nurses from the European Union (including former Soviet Bloc countries such as Latvia, Lithuania and Slovakia) who have applied to work in Britain, have been able to complete the stringent qualification tests.
The NWC always insisted that nurses must have worked at least 450 hours in the last three years or go on a refresher course to qualify to work in Britain.
The EU however recently informed the NWC that it was going to sue the nursing standards body for violating the EU’s freedom of movement regulations by its insistence on that rule.
The tests have now been stopped and the rule which demanded a minimum working time experience has also been dropped.
Ironically, British nurses are still subject to these very same rules from which the EU nurses are now exempt, a fact which dramatically underlines the bizarre nature of the EU superstate.
A study released in April this year showed that EU rules on doctors' working hours, the European Working Time Directive (EWTD), had seen hospital sick rates more than double.
Under the rules, doctors have been limited in terms of how long they can work which, in turn, has forced consultants to spend less time on the wards and provide less support to junior doctors.
Dr Hugh McIntyre, from the Conquest Hospital in East Sussex, who led the April 2010 study, was quoted as saying that the “changes in working practice necessary to comply with the EWTD were associated with, and may have contributed to, a detrimental effect on the welfare of doctors in training.”
Dr Andrew Goddard, director of the Royal College of Physicians’ (RCP) medical workforce unit, said in an article of his association’s journal that research “carried out by the RCP supports these findings such as high sickness and vacancies levels across England and Wales.
“We are concerned that this has significant implications for patient safety and the quality of medical training in the UK.”
You can just imagine how great the Philipino Nurses they want to bring into Austria will be. No Competency checks, poorer quality workers and 100,000 or more of them for Austria. ! Just Remember they are better than Austrian Kids of course !
Monday, August 23, 2010
Australia Now Rejects Mass Immigration !
Elections define nations. This one has already redefined Australia even before the first vote is counted. Indeed, the most important changes could well be the ones that aren't actually on the ballot paper but have already been agreed through political osmosis.
For the first time since 1947, Australia has abandoned its bipartisan consensus in favour of a “big Australia.”
“What we see at this election is a complete reversal of the origins of the postwar immigration program, which was all about a big Australia. Since then, our population has tripled from 7 million to 21 million.”
Tony Abbott's Coalition has pledged to cut the intake from 270,000 last year to 170,000 within its first term. Julia Gillard has replied by saying that the government was already taking the intake to that level or below in any case.
Second, we now have a bipartisan consensus to introduce paid parental leave. Whatever the result today, Australia will become the second-last wealthy country to introduce such a scheme. Hallelujah!
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/behind-the-election-stoush-the-big-issues-they-quietly-agreed-on-20100820-138v9.html
Now that Multi-cultural Mass immigration Australia is no longer, because of the problems I foresaw. What will the Austrian Leftists say now to get immigrants into Austria ? They Certainly Cannot use the Australia Argument...
For the first time since 1947, Australia has abandoned its bipartisan consensus in favour of a “big Australia.”
“What we see at this election is a complete reversal of the origins of the postwar immigration program, which was all about a big Australia. Since then, our population has tripled from 7 million to 21 million.”
Tony Abbott's Coalition has pledged to cut the intake from 270,000 last year to 170,000 within its first term. Julia Gillard has replied by saying that the government was already taking the intake to that level or below in any case.
Second, we now have a bipartisan consensus to introduce paid parental leave. Whatever the result today, Australia will become the second-last wealthy country to introduce such a scheme. Hallelujah!
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/behind-the-election-stoush-the-big-issues-they-quietly-agreed-on-20100820-138v9.html
Now that Multi-cultural Mass immigration Australia is no longer, because of the problems I foresaw. What will the Austrian Leftists say now to get immigrants into Austria ? They Certainly Cannot use the Australia Argument...
Monday, August 16, 2010
Americans Fire Warning Shots at Austria !
Most voters in Florida support an immigration law like the one recently passed in Arizona in their state.
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 60% of Likely Voters in the state favor a similar immigration law in Florida, which is in line with national findings. Twenty-seven percent oppose such a law, and 13% are not sure one way or the other.
The percentage of supporters has held fairly steady since last month, when 62% supported an Arizona-like immigration law. Platinum Members can see state-by-state results from across the country. Only four states have support below 50% and three top 70%.
That same month, 60% of Florida voters also opposed the U.S. Justice Department’s challenge of Arizona’s immigration law.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
This statewide telephone survey of 750 Likely Voters in Florida was conducted on August 9, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/-4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
The majority of Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major political party support an immigration law in Florida, while Democrats are more divided.
A majority of white voters favor the law, while a majority of voters of other ethnicities oppose it. African-American voters are more evenly divided on the issue.
Fifty-eight percent (58%) in Florida believe that a child born in the United States to an illegal immigrant should not automatically become a citizen of the United States. Twenty-nine percent (29%) disagree and think such a child should automatically become a citizen. Another 13% of voters are not sure.
Most voters (54%) in the state say that allowing individual states to act on their own to enforce immigration laws is a better approach to dealing with immigration. This is also very similar to opinions on the national level. One-in-three voters (35%) think it is better to rely on the federal government to enforce immigration laws. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure which is a better option.
Fifty percent (50%) of Democrats think it is better to leave immigration enforcement to the federal government, while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters hold the opposite view.
Rick Scott remains the stronger of the two Republican hopefuls for governor of Florida against Democrat Alex Sink, with independent candidate "Bud" Chiles siphoning votes from both parties.
The race for the U.S. Senate in Florida continues to be all about Governor Charlie Crist and former state House Speaker Marco Rubio, regardless of which Democrat they face.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Platinum Members only.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/florida/60_in_florida_favor_arizona_like_immigration_law_in_their_state
Would it not be wise for the Austrians to listen to people who have more experience with mass immigration ? I challenge Maria Fekter and other multi cultural enthusiasts on this ! I also demand that Austrian politicians STOP using the united states to promote their mass immigration fantasies, unless they are liars.
~ Arizona Style Laws will be Enforced regardless of Court decison. States will set their own Immigration Policies
federal court ruling throwing out key sections of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law has apparently not stopped momentum for similar "crackdown" legislation in other states. A national lobby, AFLI, said Wednesday 22 states are now considering versions of the Arizona legislation.
They range from one other border state, Texas, to large northern states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Most recently, Colorado and Alabama went forward with legislation, according to the organization.
Activists "have been working hard contacting state lawmakers in every state in America asking them to stand up with Arizona," said William Gheen,
The Arizona law took effect last month but with key provisions thrown out by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, including a requirement for police to check the immigration papers of anyone stopped under "reasonable suspicion" of unlawful status. Opponents, including the Obama administration, say such laws lead to racial profiling and harassment of immigrants as well as U.S. citizens.
"Other states following in Arizona's misguided footsteps should consider themselves forewarned: Attempts to trample constitutional rights of communities of color in this country must not be permitted," said Linton Joaquin of the National Immigration Law Center, part of a civil rights coalition opposed to the law, who commented after Bolton's decision.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is appealing the ruling.
In Washington, Congress is expected to complete action next month on a $600 million bill that would increase border security by adding federal agents and also unmanned surveillance drones to monitor movements along the U.S.-Mexico border.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/18/immigration-22-states-following-arizonas-lead-with-bills-polic/
Blacks and Whites Differ sharply on many political views - Race is Important Factor in Determining Political Affiliation (BLOCK VOTING)
PRINCETON, NJ -- President Obama's job approval rating averaged 88% among blacks and 38% among whites in July, a 50-percentage-point difference that has been consistent in recent months but is much larger than in the initial months of the Obama presidency. Obama's job approval ratings among blacks, whites, and Hispanics in July are all at their lowest levels to date, although the overwhelming majority of blacks still approve.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141725/Blacks-Whites-Continue-Differ-Sharply-Obama.aspx
A new Rasmussen Reports telephone survey finds that 60% of Likely Voters in the state favor a similar immigration law in Florida, which is in line with national findings. Twenty-seven percent oppose such a law, and 13% are not sure one way or the other.
The percentage of supporters has held fairly steady since last month, when 62% supported an Arizona-like immigration law. Platinum Members can see state-by-state results from across the country. Only four states have support below 50% and three top 70%.
That same month, 60% of Florida voters also opposed the U.S. Justice Department’s challenge of Arizona’s immigration law.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
This statewide telephone survey of 750 Likely Voters in Florida was conducted on August 9, 2010 by Rasmussen Reports. The margin of sampling error is +/-4 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. Field work for all Rasmussen Reports surveys is conducted by Pulse Opinion Research, LLC. See methodology.
The majority of Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major political party support an immigration law in Florida, while Democrats are more divided.
A majority of white voters favor the law, while a majority of voters of other ethnicities oppose it. African-American voters are more evenly divided on the issue.
Fifty-eight percent (58%) in Florida believe that a child born in the United States to an illegal immigrant should not automatically become a citizen of the United States. Twenty-nine percent (29%) disagree and think such a child should automatically become a citizen. Another 13% of voters are not sure.
Most voters (54%) in the state say that allowing individual states to act on their own to enforce immigration laws is a better approach to dealing with immigration. This is also very similar to opinions on the national level. One-in-three voters (35%) think it is better to rely on the federal government to enforce immigration laws. Eleven percent (11%) are not sure which is a better option.
Fifty percent (50%) of Democrats think it is better to leave immigration enforcement to the federal government, while most Republicans and unaffiliated voters hold the opposite view.
Rick Scott remains the stronger of the two Republican hopefuls for governor of Florida against Democrat Alex Sink, with independent candidate "Bud" Chiles siphoning votes from both parties.
The race for the U.S. Senate in Florida continues to be all about Governor Charlie Crist and former state House Speaker Marco Rubio, regardless of which Democrat they face.
Please sign up for the Rasmussen Reports daily e-mail update (it’s free) or follow us on Twitter or Facebook. Let us keep you up to date with the latest public opinion news.
See survey questions and toplines. Crosstabs are available to Platinum Members only.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_state_surveys/florida/60_in_florida_favor_arizona_like_immigration_law_in_their_state
Would it not be wise for the Austrians to listen to people who have more experience with mass immigration ? I challenge Maria Fekter and other multi cultural enthusiasts on this ! I also demand that Austrian politicians STOP using the united states to promote their mass immigration fantasies, unless they are liars.
~ Arizona Style Laws will be Enforced regardless of Court decison. States will set their own Immigration Policies
federal court ruling throwing out key sections of Arizona's tough anti-illegal immigration law has apparently not stopped momentum for similar "crackdown" legislation in other states. A national lobby, AFLI, said Wednesday 22 states are now considering versions of the Arizona legislation.
They range from one other border state, Texas, to large northern states like Ohio, Michigan, Pennsylvania and New Jersey. Most recently, Colorado and Alabama went forward with legislation, according to the organization.
Activists "have been working hard contacting state lawmakers in every state in America asking them to stand up with Arizona," said William Gheen,
The Arizona law took effect last month but with key provisions thrown out by U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton, including a requirement for police to check the immigration papers of anyone stopped under "reasonable suspicion" of unlawful status. Opponents, including the Obama administration, say such laws lead to racial profiling and harassment of immigrants as well as U.S. citizens.
"Other states following in Arizona's misguided footsteps should consider themselves forewarned: Attempts to trample constitutional rights of communities of color in this country must not be permitted," said Linton Joaquin of the National Immigration Law Center, part of a civil rights coalition opposed to the law, who commented after Bolton's decision.
Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer is appealing the ruling.
In Washington, Congress is expected to complete action next month on a $600 million bill that would increase border security by adding federal agents and also unmanned surveillance drones to monitor movements along the U.S.-Mexico border.
http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/08/18/immigration-22-states-following-arizonas-lead-with-bills-polic/
Blacks and Whites Differ sharply on many political views - Race is Important Factor in Determining Political Affiliation (BLOCK VOTING)
PRINCETON, NJ -- President Obama's job approval rating averaged 88% among blacks and 38% among whites in July, a 50-percentage-point difference that has been consistent in recent months but is much larger than in the initial months of the Obama presidency. Obama's job approval ratings among blacks, whites, and Hispanics in July are all at their lowest levels to date, although the overwhelming majority of blacks still approve.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/141725/Blacks-Whites-Continue-Differ-Sharply-Obama.aspx
Saturday, August 14, 2010
TRUTH and LIES about the OVP Immigration policy !
1. LIE: Maria Fekter Claims that only highly skilled people such as engineers will be allowed in under the policy.
TRUTH: The definition of "skilled" is so low, that even table waiters are allowed in under the policy.
2. LIE: Maria Fekter Claims that the Birth Rate in Austria is decreasng.
TRUTH: Recent reports indicate that the Austrian Birth Rate actually increased.
3. LIE: Maria Fekter Claims only 100,000 immigrants will be allowed in under the policy.
TRUTH: The immigrants will be alowed to bring their families which would mean that with every 1 immigrant could come hundreds of additional family members which would drive the number of immigrants up to millions. Furthermore, illegal immigration and asylum seekers would also continue to come.
4. LIE: Maria Fekter Claims that the immigrants are necessary to support the social system.
TRUTH: The immigrants would recieve benefits upon arrival and statisitcs show that immigrants usually burden the social system.
5. LIE: Maria Fekter Says the immigrants will not take Austrian Jobs,
TRUTH: Austria already has high unemployment and the immigrant's family members also want jobs.
6.LIE: Maria Fekter Says immigrants will speak German before coming to Austria.
TRUTH: In reality the immigrants will only have to know afew basic phrases of German before entry. The "German Requirement" is only a charade to sell the immigration idea and is as little as an immigration remembering afew words of German.
7. LIE: Maria Fekter claims immigration causes no problems in countries like USA.
TRUTH: Immigration is a controversial issue in the USA and the West. Currently the US elections are focused on immigration.
8. LIE: Maria Fekter claims that immigration will only be good.
TRUTH: THE OVP and SPO has refused to study immigration before this massive decison. Why would people so certain refuse studies ? And if Immigration was so wonderful, why has Maria Fekter suddenly attemted to hide behind slogans such as "integration", "German before immigration" etc... Why this deception ?
MARIA FEKTER is A LIAR !
TRUTH: The definition of "skilled" is so low, that even table waiters are allowed in under the policy.
2. LIE: Maria Fekter Claims that the Birth Rate in Austria is decreasng.
TRUTH: Recent reports indicate that the Austrian Birth Rate actually increased.
3. LIE: Maria Fekter Claims only 100,000 immigrants will be allowed in under the policy.
TRUTH: The immigrants will be alowed to bring their families which would mean that with every 1 immigrant could come hundreds of additional family members which would drive the number of immigrants up to millions. Furthermore, illegal immigration and asylum seekers would also continue to come.
4. LIE: Maria Fekter Claims that the immigrants are necessary to support the social system.
TRUTH: The immigrants would recieve benefits upon arrival and statisitcs show that immigrants usually burden the social system.
5. LIE: Maria Fekter Says the immigrants will not take Austrian Jobs,
TRUTH: Austria already has high unemployment and the immigrant's family members also want jobs.
6.LIE: Maria Fekter Says immigrants will speak German before coming to Austria.
TRUTH: In reality the immigrants will only have to know afew basic phrases of German before entry. The "German Requirement" is only a charade to sell the immigration idea and is as little as an immigration remembering afew words of German.
7. LIE: Maria Fekter claims immigration causes no problems in countries like USA.
TRUTH: Immigration is a controversial issue in the USA and the West. Currently the US elections are focused on immigration.
8. LIE: Maria Fekter claims that immigration will only be good.
TRUTH: THE OVP and SPO has refused to study immigration before this massive decison. Why would people so certain refuse studies ? And if Immigration was so wonderful, why has Maria Fekter suddenly attemted to hide behind slogans such as "integration", "German before immigration" etc... Why this deception ?
MARIA FEKTER is A LIAR !
Austrian Birth Rate Increases. What Does OVP say now ?
Birth figures edge up
Austria registered a slight increase in births in the first half of this year.
Statistics body Statistik Austria announced today (Weds) that there were 36,963 births between January and June of this year, up by 2.9 per cent compared to the first six months of 2009. The agency added that, with 39.6 per cent, almost four in 10 babies were born out of wedlock.
Carinthia recorded the highest rise in overall births among the country’s nine provinces with 9.2 per cent, followed by Salzburg (plus 6.8 per cent) and capital Vienna (4.3 per cent).
The eastern province of Burgenland (minus 5.7 per cent) and Tyrol (minus 0.7 per cent) in western Austria were the only two provinces with fewer births year on year in the first half of 2010.
Eurostat, the European Commission’s (EC) statistics agency, revealed recently that Austria has the second-lowest birth among the European Union’s (EU) 27 member states.
The body said there were 9.1 births per 1,000 inhabitants in Austria last year. Only neighbouring Germany had a lower rate (7.9), it added.
Right-wing opposition chiefs criticised People’s Party (ÖVP) Foreign Minister Michael Spindelegger recently over his suggestion to engage in an "active immigration policy" to help more qualified foreigners settling down in Austria.
Spindelegger said the federal health and social system was at risk without immigration as research has shown that the share of elderly Austrians was set to soar over the coming decades. Austria will also risk a stark decline in population without any immigration, according to analysts.
Freedom Party (FPÖ) and Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZÖ) chiefs however branded the foreign minister’s suggestion as "dangerous" and a "superfluous attempt to cause a discussion during the summer".
Austrian Times
http://www.austriantimes.at/news/Panorama/2010-08-11/25891/Birth_figures_edge_up
What the Hell is happening ? The birth rate of Austria increased, not decreased like Maria Fekter is saying. And in Carinthia, where Jorg Haider was governor, there was the largest increase, almost 10% in less than half a year. Obviously whatever the BZO has done has fixed the problem in Carinthia.
Something is not right. A logical thing to do would be to copy the sucessful FPO/BZO policies in this case. BUT It seems these OVP/SPO politicians have their own ideological agenda that is not honest with the Austrian citizens ! I did some research recently and I discovered that the OVP and SPO is getting money from people and many major media outlets in austria that are promoting pro-immigration views are owned or influenced by the SAME people that run the news here in the USA.....
Austria registered a slight increase in births in the first half of this year.
Statistics body Statistik Austria announced today (Weds) that there were 36,963 births between January and June of this year, up by 2.9 per cent compared to the first six months of 2009. The agency added that, with 39.6 per cent, almost four in 10 babies were born out of wedlock.
Carinthia recorded the highest rise in overall births among the country’s nine provinces with 9.2 per cent, followed by Salzburg (plus 6.8 per cent) and capital Vienna (4.3 per cent).
The eastern province of Burgenland (minus 5.7 per cent) and Tyrol (minus 0.7 per cent) in western Austria were the only two provinces with fewer births year on year in the first half of 2010.
Eurostat, the European Commission’s (EC) statistics agency, revealed recently that Austria has the second-lowest birth among the European Union’s (EU) 27 member states.
The body said there were 9.1 births per 1,000 inhabitants in Austria last year. Only neighbouring Germany had a lower rate (7.9), it added.
Right-wing opposition chiefs criticised People’s Party (ÖVP) Foreign Minister Michael Spindelegger recently over his suggestion to engage in an "active immigration policy" to help more qualified foreigners settling down in Austria.
Spindelegger said the federal health and social system was at risk without immigration as research has shown that the share of elderly Austrians was set to soar over the coming decades. Austria will also risk a stark decline in population without any immigration, according to analysts.
Freedom Party (FPÖ) and Alliance for the Future of Austria (BZÖ) chiefs however branded the foreign minister’s suggestion as "dangerous" and a "superfluous attempt to cause a discussion during the summer".
Austrian Times
http://www.austriantimes.at/news/Panorama/2010-08-11/25891/Birth_figures_edge_up
What the Hell is happening ? The birth rate of Austria increased, not decreased like Maria Fekter is saying. And in Carinthia, where Jorg Haider was governor, there was the largest increase, almost 10% in less than half a year. Obviously whatever the BZO has done has fixed the problem in Carinthia.
Something is not right. A logical thing to do would be to copy the sucessful FPO/BZO policies in this case. BUT It seems these OVP/SPO politicians have their own ideological agenda that is not honest with the Austrian citizens ! I did some research recently and I discovered that the OVP and SPO is getting money from people and many major media outlets in austria that are promoting pro-immigration views are owned or influenced by the SAME people that run the news here in the USA.....
Thursday, August 12, 2010
Media Bias Revealed. One cannot ever consider the media to be honest.
One of the most striking examples of media dishonesty and political motivation occured in the 2008 presidential elections. News and views that did not favor candidate Obama were supressed and few if any opposing voices were allowed. This is a microcosm of the media in general anywhere in the world. A media outlet can easily act in unison with a politican or group with a radical agenda and usually favors left wing causes.
One can find clear parallels in the behavior of the Austrian media presently. I often read various Austrian news. One finds constantly stories promoting mass immigration. On besides stories promoting mass immigration we find stories attacking deceased politician Jorg Haider ? There are not views critical of mass immigration presented ?. This points to deception on the part of the Austrian media. I hope the Austrians shall be wise this time and not gullible like we Americans were.
'Call Them Racists' How "journolists" tried to suppress the news.
By JAMES TARANTO - Wall Street Journal
(We'll be away on assignment tomorrow, returning Thursday.)
The "Journolist" scandal has deepened with new revelations that participants in the now-defunct email list for ideologically approved journalists--no conservatives allowed--engaged in efforts to suppress news damaging to then-candidate Barack Obama.
The Daily Caller reports ABC News's "tough questioning" of Obama at a 2008 debate with Hillary Clinton "left many of [the Journolist participants] outraged":
"George [Stephanopoulos]," fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is "being a disgusting little rat snake."
Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
Most damning is a long quote from a Spencer Ackerman, who worked for something called the Washington Independent:
I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It's not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright's defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger's [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.
And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them--Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares--and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.
Smashing somebody's [sic] through a plate-glass window seems like an odd way to thread a needle, but atrocious prose is the least of the problems here. The problem here isn't bias, either. Assuming Ackerman was an opinion writer rather than a straight-news reporter, he was entitled not only to hold his opinions but to express them.
But Ackerman was not engaging in a public debate; he was privately strategizing about how to suppress the news. And his fellow journolists, while disagreeing with him, did so "only on strategic grounds":
"Spencer, you're wrong," wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. "Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn't further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_--Obama's substantive agenda--with this crap." . . .
Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman's strategy. "I think it's worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he's trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he's not going [to] change the way politics works?"
But it was Ackerman who had the last word. "Kevin, I'm not saying OBAMA should do this. I'm saying WE should do this
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379200412040286.html?mod=WSJ_article_related
One can find clear parallels in the behavior of the Austrian media presently. I often read various Austrian news. One finds constantly stories promoting mass immigration. On besides stories promoting mass immigration we find stories attacking deceased politician Jorg Haider ? There are not views critical of mass immigration presented ?. This points to deception on the part of the Austrian media. I hope the Austrians shall be wise this time and not gullible like we Americans were.
'Call Them Racists' How "journolists" tried to suppress the news.
By JAMES TARANTO - Wall Street Journal
(We'll be away on assignment tomorrow, returning Thursday.)
The "Journolist" scandal has deepened with new revelations that participants in the now-defunct email list for ideologically approved journalists--no conservatives allowed--engaged in efforts to suppress news damaging to then-candidate Barack Obama.
The Daily Caller reports ABC News's "tough questioning" of Obama at a 2008 debate with Hillary Clinton "left many of [the Journolist participants] outraged":
"George [Stephanopoulos]," fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is "being a disgusting little rat snake."
Others went further. According to records obtained by The Daily Caller, at several points during the 2008 presidential campaign a group of liberal journalists took radical steps to protect their favored candidate. Employees of news organizations including Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon and the New Republic participated in outpourings of anger over how Obama had been treated in the media, and in some cases plotted to fix the damage.
Most damning is a long quote from a Spencer Ackerman, who worked for something called the Washington Independent:
I do not endorse a Popular Front, nor do I think you need to. It's not necessary to jump to Wright-qua-Wright's defense. What is necessary is to raise the cost on the right of going after the left. In other words, find a rightwinger's [sic] and smash it through a plate-glass window. Take a snapshot of the bleeding mess and send it out in a Christmas card to let the right know that it needs to live in a state of constant fear. Obviously I mean this rhetorically.
And I think this threads the needle. If the right forces us all to either defend Wright or tear him down, no matter what we choose, we lose the game they've put upon us. Instead, take one of them--Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares--and call them racists. Ask: why do they have such a deep-seated problem with a black politician who unites the country? What lurks behind those problems? This makes *them* sputter with rage, which in turn leads to overreaction and self-destruction.
Smashing somebody's [sic] through a plate-glass window seems like an odd way to thread a needle, but atrocious prose is the least of the problems here. The problem here isn't bias, either. Assuming Ackerman was an opinion writer rather than a straight-news reporter, he was entitled not only to hold his opinions but to express them.
But Ackerman was not engaging in a public debate; he was privately strategizing about how to suppress the news. And his fellow journolists, while disagreeing with him, did so "only on strategic grounds":
"Spencer, you're wrong," wrote Mark Schmitt, now an editor at the American Prospect. "Calling Fred Barnes a racist doesn't further the argument, and not just because Juan Williams is his new black friend, but because that makes it all about character. The goal is to get to the point where you can contrast some _thing_--Obama's substantive agenda--with this crap." . . .
Kevin Drum, then of Washington Monthly, also disagreed with Ackerman's strategy. "I think it's worth keeping in mind that Obama is trying (or says he's trying) to run a campaign that avoids precisely the kind of thing Spencer is talking about, and turning this into a gutter brawl would probably hurt the Obama brand pretty strongly. After all, why vote for him if it turns out he's not going [to] change the way politics works?"
But it was Ackerman who had the last word. "Kevin, I'm not saying OBAMA should do this. I'm saying WE should do this
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703724104575379200412040286.html?mod=WSJ_article_related
Ronald Reagan At Bitburg and Jorg Haider at Ulrichsberg
 |
| Jorg Haider at Ulrichsberg Memorial |
 |
| President Ronald Reagan at Bitburg Memorial |
Jorg Haider has been in the news lately again. Even though he has been dead several years, it seems they cannot let the man rest in peace. As usual he is labeled a "Nazi" and what not and attempt to discredit him and all of his policies no matter what they were. However the majority of the controversy surrounding Haider stems from a sinlge visit made to a German war memorial once. Ironically conservative icon and American President Ronald Reagan made a similar speech and did something very similar in 1984. We know Regan was not a "Nazi", and therefore Haider should not be judged based on this action alone either. In truth both Haider and Regan had similar positive goals.
"The Diaries’ first mention of Reagan’s decision to visit the Kolmeshöhe Cemetery, which contained the graves of Nazi-SS soldiers, occurred in November 1984. During a meeting with West German Chancellor Helmut Kohl at the G7 Summit in Bonn, Reagan recorded that the Germans feared being “ignored” during the upcoming 40th anniversary of V-E Day. “They suffer a great guilt complex over the Nazi period,” he wrote. “I’m suggesting including them this time & making the occasion one of celebrating when the hatred stopped & peace & friendship began which has continued for 40 yrs.”"
"Polls later showed that 59% of Americans supported Reagan’s visit — up from 49% before his trip. “I always felt it was the morally right thing to do,” he wrote."
"Jorg Haider said: "It is unacceptable that the past of our fathers and grandparents is reduced to that of criminals," he told a gathering of about 2,000 veterans in the southern town of Ulrichsberg. "
"Mr Haider, former chief of the Freedom Party, said: "Most who come here are not old Nazis or neo-Nazis.
"They are old citizens who suffered during the war and lost their youth to the war and then began to rebuild."
"Mr Haider received a spontaneous standing ovation from the crowd."
It is clear that Jorg Haider was not necessarily attempting to promote neo-nazism at this event, just like President Reagan was not. The Speeches and behavior are suprisingly similar. I think that people would be better off taking to heart the intent rather than rushing to judgement.
Success in Denmark ! Why not Austria ?
Increased birth rate for Danish women
Wednesday, 06 May 2009 15:40 News
Danish women are giving birth more, while immigrant women are cutting back on their number of children
A new report from Statistics Denmark shows that Danish women are having more children than ever. Last year, women of child-bearing age had an average of 1.9 children, which is the highest figure since 1975.
Welfare researcher Karen Sjørup of Roskilde University told Berlingske Tidende newspaper that most Danish couples want two children and no longer face financial or career barriers by having more children.
‘The mum and dad can look after a job and career and at the same time there are good opportunities for childcare in nurseries and kindergartens. In addition, we also are well covered by maternity leave,’ said Sjørup.
Meanwhile, other figures from the statistics agency show that families from non-Western countries who settle in Denmark are having fewer children than before. These foreign women gave birth to an average of 3.04 children in 1998, but that figure fell to an average of 1.94 by last year.
Garbi Schmidt from the National Research Center for Welfare said that the falling figures were as a result of immigrant women adopting the norms and values of fellow Danish mothers.
http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/45603-increased-birth-rate-for-danish-women.html
Once Again Denmark has turned the demographic tide. This shows that a nation can easily change negative demographics if they wanted to. However the OVP and other Austrian politicans are blinded by ideology and disdain for their own people. I wonder in 2030, who will be better off, homogenous Denmark or diverse Austria ?
Related:
Denmark Stops Non western Immigration
Peter Skaarup, DF’s deputy chairman and immigration spokesman, said that they feel it is necessary to restrict, if not fully put a stop to, the integration to Denmark from the non-Western world, as this integration is a hindrance on the country’s economy, which is already under pressure due to the effects of the financial crisis.
Skaarup added that he feels it was necessary to stop the immigration in order to secure the survival of the welfare state, as it can only continue to exist if immigrants pay taxes.
If immigrants only receive benefits but not pay taxes, the state cannot survive, he argued, adding that figures show it is integration from the non-Western world which causes problems, as these immigrants contribute too little to the welfare state.
http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/49627.html?task=view
In other words the Austrian OVP thinks immigrants will "save" the welfare state, but the Danes like most other nations realize that immigration will ultimately destroy the welfare state. It is a shame some peope can't take a hint.
Wednesday, 06 May 2009 15:40 News
Danish women are giving birth more, while immigrant women are cutting back on their number of children
A new report from Statistics Denmark shows that Danish women are having more children than ever. Last year, women of child-bearing age had an average of 1.9 children, which is the highest figure since 1975.
Welfare researcher Karen Sjørup of Roskilde University told Berlingske Tidende newspaper that most Danish couples want two children and no longer face financial or career barriers by having more children.
‘The mum and dad can look after a job and career and at the same time there are good opportunities for childcare in nurseries and kindergartens. In addition, we also are well covered by maternity leave,’ said Sjørup.
Meanwhile, other figures from the statistics agency show that families from non-Western countries who settle in Denmark are having fewer children than before. These foreign women gave birth to an average of 3.04 children in 1998, but that figure fell to an average of 1.94 by last year.
Garbi Schmidt from the National Research Center for Welfare said that the falling figures were as a result of immigrant women adopting the norms and values of fellow Danish mothers.
http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/88-national/45603-increased-birth-rate-for-danish-women.html
Once Again Denmark has turned the demographic tide. This shows that a nation can easily change negative demographics if they wanted to. However the OVP and other Austrian politicans are blinded by ideology and disdain for their own people. I wonder in 2030, who will be better off, homogenous Denmark or diverse Austria ?
Related:
Denmark Stops Non western Immigration
Peter Skaarup, DF’s deputy chairman and immigration spokesman, said that they feel it is necessary to restrict, if not fully put a stop to, the integration to Denmark from the non-Western world, as this integration is a hindrance on the country’s economy, which is already under pressure due to the effects of the financial crisis.
Skaarup added that he feels it was necessary to stop the immigration in order to secure the survival of the welfare state, as it can only continue to exist if immigrants pay taxes.
If immigrants only receive benefits but not pay taxes, the state cannot survive, he argued, adding that figures show it is integration from the non-Western world which causes problems, as these immigrants contribute too little to the welfare state.
http://www.cphpost.dk/news/national/49627.html?task=view
In other words the Austrian OVP thinks immigrants will "save" the welfare state, but the Danes like most other nations realize that immigration will ultimately destroy the welfare state. It is a shame some peope can't take a hint.
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
OVP Today and Labour Yesterday - Same Lies Different Times
"Labour wanted mass immigration to make UK more multicultural, says former adviser"
"Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed. "
"The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett. "
"He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".
"As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants. "
"Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.htm
In other words, the British people were lied to and taken advantage of for the sake of ideology and radical politicians. Just like Austria Today no ? The same drama plays itself out in the West, yet again !
Let us look at the effects on Britain:
Indigenous British Births in Minority:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/08/revealed_the_uk.php
Immigrants Get Most Jobs:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/08/foreign-born_wo.php
Gordon Brown Drowning in His Lies
"Labour threw open Britain's borders to mass immigration to help socially engineer a "truly multicultural" country, a former Government adviser has revealed. "
"The huge increases in migrants over the last decade were partly due to a politically motivated attempt by ministers to radically change the country and "rub the Right's nose in diversity", according to Andrew Neather, a former adviser to Tony Blair, Jack Straw and David Blunkett. "
"He said Labour's relaxation of controls was a deliberate plan to "open up the UK to mass migration" but that ministers were nervous and reluctant to discuss such a move publicly for fear it would alienate its "core working class vote".
"As a result, the public argument for immigration concentrated instead on the economic benefits and need for more migrants. "
"Critics said the revelations showed a "conspiracy" within Government to impose mass immigration for "cynical" political reasons."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/6418456/Labour-wanted-mass-immigration-to-make-UK-more-multicultural-says-former-adviser.htm
In other words, the British people were lied to and taken advantage of for the sake of ideology and radical politicians. Just like Austria Today no ? The same drama plays itself out in the West, yet again !
Let us look at the effects on Britain:
Indigenous British Births in Minority:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/08/revealed_the_uk.php
Immigrants Get Most Jobs:
http://www.amren.com/mtnews/archives/2010/08/foreign-born_wo.php
Gordon Brown Drowning in His Lies
Questions For Maria Fekter ????
1. Why do you think your immigration plan will be sucessful and not have the problems encountered in other nations ?
2. Does it bother you at all that the indigenous Austrian will dissapear in due time because of your policies ?
3. It seems to me that you are not telling Austrians the truth and are not listening to all sides of the issue. Why is this ?
4. Would you consider a compromise solution ? For example, for two years Austria tries to raise the bitrth rate with tax policies and such. Then we decide to let in the millions ?
5. What do you think about the immigration debate in the USA and the opinion polls which show overwelmingly that most Americans are against mass immigration and support Arizona. Do you really think most Americans are "racist", "homophobic", or "stupid" for supporting Arizona ?
6. It seems you are in a hurry to get immigrants into Austria without trying alternatives, is their a hurry ?
7. Besides the so called "practical concerns", you espouse, are their also ideological or financial concerns for immigration which you do not mention ?
8. You declare that every immigrant who comes to Austria from any part of the world will be an integrted Austrian if they just speak German and what not. and their will be no problems.If this is the case, how do you explain achievement gaps and social problems from people who speak the same language, but are ethnically different. Fore example, why do American Africans and hispanics do so poorly in education, recieve public assistance more and commit crimes at a higher rate when compared to American Whites and Asians ? Why do we see these same achievement gaps in Europe as we do in the USA ? And Why do even the different White ethnic groups in the USA have different levels of achievement ? In light of this evidence, do you truly thing language is the only problem ?
2. Does it bother you at all that the indigenous Austrian will dissapear in due time because of your policies ?
3. It seems to me that you are not telling Austrians the truth and are not listening to all sides of the issue. Why is this ?
4. Would you consider a compromise solution ? For example, for two years Austria tries to raise the bitrth rate with tax policies and such. Then we decide to let in the millions ?
5. What do you think about the immigration debate in the USA and the opinion polls which show overwelmingly that most Americans are against mass immigration and support Arizona. Do you really think most Americans are "racist", "homophobic", or "stupid" for supporting Arizona ?
6. It seems you are in a hurry to get immigrants into Austria without trying alternatives, is their a hurry ?
7. Besides the so called "practical concerns", you espouse, are their also ideological or financial concerns for immigration which you do not mention ?
8. You declare that every immigrant who comes to Austria from any part of the world will be an integrted Austrian if they just speak German and what not. and their will be no problems.If this is the case, how do you explain achievement gaps and social problems from people who speak the same language, but are ethnically different. Fore example, why do American Africans and hispanics do so poorly in education, recieve public assistance more and commit crimes at a higher rate when compared to American Whites and Asians ? Why do we see these same achievement gaps in Europe as we do in the USA ? And Why do even the different White ethnic groups in the USA have different levels of achievement ? In light of this evidence, do you truly thing language is the only problem ?
Media Lies to Austrian People !
I was Reading the Austrian news the other day and I encountered an article which basically lies to the Austrian people. The media seems to be utterly confused about reality, or deliberately trying to decieve the Austrian people. I will break down this article and expose the falsehoods.
http://wienerzeitung.at/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3858&Alias=wzo&cob=511478
"Future researchers: "Immigration is essential "
By WZ Online
"Migrants is essential for life . "
"Death rate in 2030 could exceed the birth rate."
"Salzburg. To achieve a growth rate of the population without the baby boom and a corresponding quality of life in Austria , this would require immigration. This is the conclusion of the future researcher Reinhold Popp."
The Key word is "without the baby boom". In other words the researcher admits that an increase in birth rates is esentailly all that is needed.
"The composition of the population has a very significant impact on the quality of life . " It is a fact that the Company will always be older and reduces the number of children themselves. A population could grow only if there is immigration , Popp said of the University of Salzburg for future studies. The future structure of the population depends not only upon how many children are born and how many die , but also on how many people migrate in and out. All reputable demographers estimate that was not expected by a positive migration balance a shrinking of the population for at least the next few decades , although the Austrian women would get fewer and fewer children , so Popp."
Once again, the researcher admits that all that is needed is an increase in the birth rate.
"Negative birth record"
"The demographic balance between young and old influences the labor market and the quality of life . But Austria had only about 15 percent of the population under 15 years old and am now the group of 65- year-olds compared with 17.7 percent. The birth rate would be strong in the fall - a negative birth balance is the result. " From 2030 it is expected that the death rate exceeds the birth rate. ""
Already in Austria the indigenous birth rate is less than the birth rate of the immigrant descended population. This suggests that immigrant descended people (especially muslims) are having more chilren than indigenous families.
"Immigration contributes to the maintenance of a high quality of life. The effect often feared that the quality of life sink due to a high proportion of foreign - step , " from an economic perspective is hardly noticeable and also for the future is unlikely , "the future researchers. Migration depends always and everywhere very closely with the life of a country. The richest countries in the world , experienced the highest immigration, the poorest , the highest emigration rates , presented Popp in his book "Quality of Life - Made in Austria firmly . " The immigration to Austria was a sign of the high quality of life in the Alpine republic."
In what nation has immigration contributed to a high quality of life ? In the united states the third world population has had the opposite effect. For example the decline of the State of california and New York can be directly correlated with high level of immigration. In every nation, we find that higher immigration results in lower quality of life. Infact the nations with the highest quality of life have the lowest levels of immigration: New Zealand, Denmark, Japan, etc.. Austria has a high quality of life due to the fact that the third world population is still low. Already we find that the immigrant community in Austria causes problems. Besides, let us question the logic: Austria is rich, so we will bring in people who are poor and come from less advanced nation and maintain our high quality of life ? IS that argument logical in any way ?
However I would agree with the researcher in one respect " migration depends always and everywhere very closely with the life of a country". That is true. Immigration is how a nation is defined. If a nation lets in people from such a country, the country becomes like that nation. For Example if Japan decided to let in million of Africans, would Japan be Africa anymore, or Japanese ?
"Neighbor Netrebko
"Migration is a very diverse phenomenon, giving the migrants simply not there . Rather, one must distinguish between asylum seekers , refugees , economic and migrant workers , etc. Familienzugehörigen . Many immigrants are workers from other EU countries , mainly Germany. Austrians were proud , for example , when famous and wealthy foreigners such as opera star Anna Netrebko and the World Professional Ivica Vastic settled in this country. In the case of financially weak foreigners outweighs the concern for many residents around the workplace. "
The vast majority of immigration to Austria will still be illegal, asylum seekers and refugees etc.. You have not stopped this. However in addition to that, you will have mass immigration of legal foreigners. Besides, why would any so called wealthy foreigners want to come to Austria, with such high taxes ? There also already is a clause in the Austrian law that allows ultra wealthy people to come immigrate. You need not bring 100,000, of hese people anyway.
"German Turks will overtake
Most migrants come from the former Yugoslavia , whose share among the foreigners living in Austria was at 38.2 percent . When the hostilities increased and were almost finished, he was as high as 45.3 percent . The second largest group of non - Austrian citizens represented by the last census in 2001 the Turks, with 17.9 percent , followed by Germans at 17.2 percent . In all probability, the group of Germans will increase even further , overtaking the Turks and even advance even by 2050 the largest group of foreigners . ( APA)"
You have no control over who comes to Austria from what nation with red white red card. The Red white card will allow anyone from any country to come to Austria. And when we consider world demographics logic dictates that the vast majority of people will African or muslim etc... And the fact that you have so many Turks in Austria about to "overtake" shows the failure of immigration to Austria. The Turks were brought to Austria under the same ideas that are taking hold now. If you have turks about to "overtake" then is it not obvious that 100,000 more immigrants will "overtake" with the turks ? Why pour gasoline on fire ?
http://wienerzeitung.at/DesktopDefault.aspx?TabID=3858&Alias=wzo&cob=511478
"Future researchers: "Immigration is essential "
By WZ Online
"Migrants is essential for life . "
"Death rate in 2030 could exceed the birth rate."
"Salzburg. To achieve a growth rate of the population without the baby boom and a corresponding quality of life in Austria , this would require immigration. This is the conclusion of the future researcher Reinhold Popp."
The Key word is "without the baby boom". In other words the researcher admits that an increase in birth rates is esentailly all that is needed.
"The composition of the population has a very significant impact on the quality of life . " It is a fact that the Company will always be older and reduces the number of children themselves. A population could grow only if there is immigration , Popp said of the University of Salzburg for future studies. The future structure of the population depends not only upon how many children are born and how many die , but also on how many people migrate in and out. All reputable demographers estimate that was not expected by a positive migration balance a shrinking of the population for at least the next few decades , although the Austrian women would get fewer and fewer children , so Popp."
Once again, the researcher admits that all that is needed is an increase in the birth rate.
"Negative birth record"
"The demographic balance between young and old influences the labor market and the quality of life . But Austria had only about 15 percent of the population under 15 years old and am now the group of 65- year-olds compared with 17.7 percent. The birth rate would be strong in the fall - a negative birth balance is the result. " From 2030 it is expected that the death rate exceeds the birth rate. ""
Already in Austria the indigenous birth rate is less than the birth rate of the immigrant descended population. This suggests that immigrant descended people (especially muslims) are having more chilren than indigenous families.
"Immigration contributes to the maintenance of a high quality of life. The effect often feared that the quality of life sink due to a high proportion of foreign - step , " from an economic perspective is hardly noticeable and also for the future is unlikely , "the future researchers. Migration depends always and everywhere very closely with the life of a country. The richest countries in the world , experienced the highest immigration, the poorest , the highest emigration rates , presented Popp in his book "Quality of Life - Made in Austria firmly . " The immigration to Austria was a sign of the high quality of life in the Alpine republic."
In what nation has immigration contributed to a high quality of life ? In the united states the third world population has had the opposite effect. For example the decline of the State of california and New York can be directly correlated with high level of immigration. In every nation, we find that higher immigration results in lower quality of life. Infact the nations with the highest quality of life have the lowest levels of immigration: New Zealand, Denmark, Japan, etc.. Austria has a high quality of life due to the fact that the third world population is still low. Already we find that the immigrant community in Austria causes problems. Besides, let us question the logic: Austria is rich, so we will bring in people who are poor and come from less advanced nation and maintain our high quality of life ? IS that argument logical in any way ?
However I would agree with the researcher in one respect " migration depends always and everywhere very closely with the life of a country". That is true. Immigration is how a nation is defined. If a nation lets in people from such a country, the country becomes like that nation. For Example if Japan decided to let in million of Africans, would Japan be Africa anymore, or Japanese ?
"Neighbor Netrebko
"Migration is a very diverse phenomenon, giving the migrants simply not there . Rather, one must distinguish between asylum seekers , refugees , economic and migrant workers , etc. Familienzugehörigen . Many immigrants are workers from other EU countries , mainly Germany. Austrians were proud , for example , when famous and wealthy foreigners such as opera star Anna Netrebko and the World Professional Ivica Vastic settled in this country. In the case of financially weak foreigners outweighs the concern for many residents around the workplace. "
The vast majority of immigration to Austria will still be illegal, asylum seekers and refugees etc.. You have not stopped this. However in addition to that, you will have mass immigration of legal foreigners. Besides, why would any so called wealthy foreigners want to come to Austria, with such high taxes ? There also already is a clause in the Austrian law that allows ultra wealthy people to come immigrate. You need not bring 100,000, of hese people anyway.
"German Turks will overtake
Most migrants come from the former Yugoslavia , whose share among the foreigners living in Austria was at 38.2 percent . When the hostilities increased and were almost finished, he was as high as 45.3 percent . The second largest group of non - Austrian citizens represented by the last census in 2001 the Turks, with 17.9 percent , followed by Germans at 17.2 percent . In all probability, the group of Germans will increase even further , overtaking the Turks and even advance even by 2050 the largest group of foreigners . ( APA)"
You have no control over who comes to Austria from what nation with red white red card. The Red white card will allow anyone from any country to come to Austria. And when we consider world demographics logic dictates that the vast majority of people will African or muslim etc... And the fact that you have so many Turks in Austria about to "overtake" shows the failure of immigration to Austria. The Turks were brought to Austria under the same ideas that are taking hold now. If you have turks about to "overtake" then is it not obvious that 100,000 more immigrants will "overtake" with the turks ? Why pour gasoline on fire ?
Sunday, August 8, 2010
The Clock is Ticking in Austria.....
Recently Austria, the last homogenous Western European nation, has been plunged into a state of debate over the issue of mass immigration. Key Officials in the Austrian government have called immigration into Austria of 100,000 thousand foreigners. This immigration will take place within a period of 10-20 years. The country will be transformed from a homogenous small nation to a multi-cultural nation within a rapid period. The supporters of mass immigration say that it is necessary, because Austrian birth-rate is too low and more skilled people are needed. As a young American man who has studied Austrian culture and politics and American politics and has lived a diverse, multi-cultural community all of his life, I will attempt to offer an opinion against mass immigration and convince you that the path advocated by Maria Fekter and others is a horrible mistake.
First off, regardless of wether someone is for, or against mass immigration, we would all agree that it will change Austria dramatically. Every Austrian institution would be affected: justice, healthcare, education, culture, politics etc.. Therefore, we should study mass immigration and the arguments both for and against it carefully. No one would argue with studying the issue. If the politicians are honest and truly beleive in immigration and want to help Austrians, they will allow studies. There is also no hurry to pass legislation aimed at increasing mass immigration. The reasons for supposedly increasing it are not so urgent as the problems claimed to be solved by mass immigration are over a long period of time anyway.
One thing that should be looked at is the effect of mass immigration in other countries. The United states, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, France, Israel, Denamark etc.. all have their own experiences with immigration and issues. Generally speaking many experiences have been negative. Crime has increased, society has become divided, diseases have multiplied, health care and natural resouces have become strained etc...I am generally unsure that mass immigration of foreigners has been a sucess in any nation, and if it has been a sucess, to what extent. It also seems ALL of these nations are attempting to end or further limit immigration.
We should also look at the political controversies surrounding mass immigration in other countries. Here in the united states immigration is a controversial issue in politics. When one turns on Republican radio stations such as Rush limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage etc... You will hear harsh words towards immigration which is a reflection of much of American society and the GOP. The Republican party in particular has taken a stance against immigration. Even recently Senator Mitch Mcconell called for the repeal of the 14th ammendmant and the state of Arizona is in a state of upheaval due to mass immigration. Steve King R-Iowa, a leading Republican leader adressed the immigration situation in Europe and offered advice not to pursue mass immigration.
And America is not a "nation of immigrants" BS. We had clearly defined immigration laws that favored Europeans until 1965. The Tea Party movement currently is a reaction to the failed social policies since the 1960's and many people wish to turn back the clock. Our politicians also decieved us in much the same way the politicians in Europe have/are decieving their people.
Furthermore, the massive social changes which occured in the 1960's in the USA were done primarily by unelected leftist judges in a process known as judicial activism, in which laws are legislated illegaly by judges. Americans NEVER had a choice in the issue of imigration. Just as recently as last week "Judge" Bolton invalidated the Arizona immigration for example. Yet shockingly Austrian politicians tout our immigration laws and situation as something to aspire to and emulate and deceptively attempt to tell their citizens what Americans believe.
As far as immigration in Australia is concerned, both parties have pledged to cut back on immigration numbers in the future, but Tony Abbott has gone a step further in committing to process all refugee's offshore and even use the army to turn back boats full of asylum seekers. Annual immigration would be cut from 300,000 to just 170,000 to reduce the growing population, yet in an ironic twist Mr Abbott has also stated that he wants to see the country's birth rate rise as it was "significantly below replacement level". A strange thing to say when criticising a growing population that is apparently unsustainable.
Let us also not forget the immigration laws in israel. Israel recently deported their non-Jewish foreign workers and children. Isreal also has strict immigration laws which favor jews. Intermarriage between non-Jews and Jews is frowned upon. The only way one could be a jew is if one has a Jewish mother. I could go on all day about the experiences and policies of other nations, but these few are enough.
And of course we must evaluate the effects of immigration into Austria itself already. Already we find massive problems related to crime, unemployment, housing, welfare, block voting, terrorism, lower quality of life etc.. They can not even fix the problems from immigrants already, but yet they demand more ? Why not give the immigrants who already live in Austria and have massive unemployment jobs, before you bring afew million more in.
I don't think birth rates is an issue. The Austrian birth rate is approximately 1.7 or something. It could not be so hard to raise a birth rate less than half of a percentage point. They raised the birth rate in Denmark, Japan and Ierland when it was necessary. The recent "decline" in birth rates from 2008-2010 is nothing to worry about, because there was a financial crisis and birth rates often fall in a financial crisis. There is also the issue of Austrians who do want to have children, but can't because it is not convenient, lack of good housing, fast paced life, high taxes, lack of financial or cultural confidence, etc... One could easily adress these issues and raise the birth rate. All of these problems will increase with the population expansion and social effects of immigration and immigration will decrease the birth rate even more.
Even if birth rates were the reason for promoting mass immigration, would one not agree that brining in 100,000 foreigners into a small nation with 8 million people is a last resort or drastic solution ? Immigration of so many is irreversible. It is also much more difficult and risky than simply attempting to raise the national birth rate by half a percentage point. Offices of immigration may have to be established, things may not go according to plan and language barriers to be overcome. In addition the usual problems such as crime and others would apear. All the problems cost millions at a minimum. The recession may also unexpectedly return. Furthermore what if you bring in all the immigrants, then problems appear and you think you made a mistake ? then what ?
We must also consider the numbers and do the math. Austria also already has immigration. Thousands of Asylum seekers come illegaly and what not. Not only will you have "active" legal immigration, but also illegal immigration. Furthermore these 100,000 immigrants will inevitably bring their familes. They could also have a higher birth rate than whatever is left of the native austrians. 100,000 immigrants will easily turn into 100,000,000 immigrants. And won't the same circumstances which cause the low birth rate in Austria still exist after you bring the immigrants in ? Therefore we can conclude that 100,000 will not be enough, but you will have to bring in more and more and more and more....
I also question the "skilled immigrants" argument. The educational standards in other nations are far below western nations. A medical degree from india is NOT the same as an Austrian degree. This loophole is readily open to abuse. And just because an immigrant is "skilled" it does not mean there will be no problems. Having a "Skill" does not translate into a job. There are plenty of unemployed people with skills, because the skills might not in be demand. How do you contemplate that you will bring in 100,000 doctors and engineers in 20 years and give them work in their career field at good wages ? And your definition of "skills" is questionable, you think that a waiter or carpenter is a skilled professional. In reality that is a menial job that any austrian could be trained to do. The "skilled" immigration idea is nothing new and has been a failure in other nations. Furthermore, so what if they are "skilled" they are still foreigners and it is 100,000 + of them.
I also do not see a deficit of talent in the Austrian population. Austria has a very high number of college graduates, which is almost above average in number. According to wikioedia, it even says Austrian college grads are so numerous that they have trouble finding jobs in their field. The average Austrian IQ is also higher than most nations in the world, including other European nations. Some of the most famous inventors and musicians have come from Austria, such as Gaston Glock. Austrians have also become celebrities such as Arnold Schwarzenneger. I sincerely doubt the imported foreigners could be better than the Austrians and that there is anything Austrians can't do.
I personally wonder why a center right party like the OVP would take such an extreme left wing position on immigration. I would imagine the sister parties of the OVP are the Republicans and conservatives in the UK--BOTH parties fundamentally opposed to mass immigration. David Cameron recently ended mass immigration, which was established by the left labour party in the UK to build up the leftist vote. And The Republicans have just gone wild on the immigrant issue lately. can we not learn from this situation ?
When you study the politics and voting trends of nations affected by mass immigration such as the USA and UK, you generally find that it disadvantages a right leaning or free market political party. In the USA the democratic party is almost entirely ethnic and religious minority, with the exception of afew white liberal zealot marxists like hillary clinton. In contrast the Republican party is almost entirely White and christian, despite massive outreach to minority communities and having a Black chairman once. The reason for this is not racism or bias, but rather the fact that only certain issues resonate with them and diferent groups have different interests. Those immigrant people tend to support socialist policies and governemnt benefits more and want resources, not for the entire community but only for their ethnic group/self interest. Thus social/political cohesion is destroyed by a diverse society and political affiliation is based on ethnicity, religion or race by coincidence.
If we were to transalte block voting into Austria, we would find a gain in Green votes and some SPO, but not OVP, and possibly some gains for FPO beause the remaining Austrians would probably be upset if the immigration produces negative results. From what I understand, Green is already dispraportionately immigrant and will grow with the new arrivals. I doubt the new arrivals would the OVP support.
There is no moral foundation for this mass immigration. Austria has NO colonial history in the third world. Austria is far too small to accomodate large numbers of people, And using thousands of foreign immigrants to replace the indigenous Austrian people is an act of genocide of the worst kind. If hundreds of thousands of Austrians were coming into Africa and native Africans were dissapearing and losing their way of life, what would you say ? Would you say these Austrians could just learn Zulu and would be exactly the same ? If Austria was humanitarian, they would preserve their people culture and way of life for other people and be the best they could be and others would follow. A person with hatred for their own people can have no love for other peoples. Furthermore, EVERY nation has immigration policies which favor themselves. Also the immigration itself will inevitably and unintentionally destroy the host nation, leaving nothing for anyone in time. In the end neither the Austrian, or the imigrant would benefit.
One may also view the immigrants as being discriminated against, but in reality the Austrian will be discriminated against. In every nation that has accepted immigration the immigrant population is often unkind to host citizens. In schools immigrants often bully and abuse other students. The native culture is generally not respected or appreciated. Their politicians when participating in democracy also often advocate active discrimination under law against native people. In the United states this discrimination takes the form of "Affirmative Action" where immigrants and people of color are favored for hiring, promotion, college admissions, loans and housing. In Germany Affirmative Action also exists-- recently in berlin leftist parties upported by ethnic minority voters introduced affimative action to the Berlin area.
I think personally Austria is perfectly fine and does not need 100,000 immigrants. I have talked to many Austrians and find them very intelligent (although a bit naive at times) The women are very atractive looking. The culture of the people and history is also very interesing. I don't know why one would wish to change it into something completely different. When I travel, or my family travels, I want them to see it the way it was and be able to experience the people. The country will never be the same with 100,000, 000 immigrants and I know from expereince it won't change for the better. These great people will just destoy themselves and it is very difficult to watch.History is repeating itself . One may also say that there will be no problems and non of the issues mentioned will appear, but in reality as soon as you let them in, you will have no control over what happens and the warning signs are as clear as day.
First off, regardless of wether someone is for, or against mass immigration, we would all agree that it will change Austria dramatically. Every Austrian institution would be affected: justice, healthcare, education, culture, politics etc.. Therefore, we should study mass immigration and the arguments both for and against it carefully. No one would argue with studying the issue. If the politicians are honest and truly beleive in immigration and want to help Austrians, they will allow studies. There is also no hurry to pass legislation aimed at increasing mass immigration. The reasons for supposedly increasing it are not so urgent as the problems claimed to be solved by mass immigration are over a long period of time anyway.
One thing that should be looked at is the effect of mass immigration in other countries. The United states, United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, France, Israel, Denamark etc.. all have their own experiences with immigration and issues. Generally speaking many experiences have been negative. Crime has increased, society has become divided, diseases have multiplied, health care and natural resouces have become strained etc...I am generally unsure that mass immigration of foreigners has been a sucess in any nation, and if it has been a sucess, to what extent. It also seems ALL of these nations are attempting to end or further limit immigration.
We should also look at the political controversies surrounding mass immigration in other countries. Here in the united states immigration is a controversial issue in politics. When one turns on Republican radio stations such as Rush limbaugh, Glenn Beck, Michael Savage etc... You will hear harsh words towards immigration which is a reflection of much of American society and the GOP. The Republican party in particular has taken a stance against immigration. Even recently Senator Mitch Mcconell called for the repeal of the 14th ammendmant and the state of Arizona is in a state of upheaval due to mass immigration. Steve King R-Iowa, a leading Republican leader adressed the immigration situation in Europe and offered advice not to pursue mass immigration.
And America is not a "nation of immigrants" BS. We had clearly defined immigration laws that favored Europeans until 1965. The Tea Party movement currently is a reaction to the failed social policies since the 1960's and many people wish to turn back the clock. Our politicians also decieved us in much the same way the politicians in Europe have/are decieving their people.
Furthermore, the massive social changes which occured in the 1960's in the USA were done primarily by unelected leftist judges in a process known as judicial activism, in which laws are legislated illegaly by judges. Americans NEVER had a choice in the issue of imigration. Just as recently as last week "Judge" Bolton invalidated the Arizona immigration for example. Yet shockingly Austrian politicians tout our immigration laws and situation as something to aspire to and emulate and deceptively attempt to tell their citizens what Americans believe.
As far as immigration in Australia is concerned, both parties have pledged to cut back on immigration numbers in the future, but Tony Abbott has gone a step further in committing to process all refugee's offshore and even use the army to turn back boats full of asylum seekers. Annual immigration would be cut from 300,000 to just 170,000 to reduce the growing population, yet in an ironic twist Mr Abbott has also stated that he wants to see the country's birth rate rise as it was "significantly below replacement level". A strange thing to say when criticising a growing population that is apparently unsustainable.
Let us also not forget the immigration laws in israel. Israel recently deported their non-Jewish foreign workers and children. Isreal also has strict immigration laws which favor jews. Intermarriage between non-Jews and Jews is frowned upon. The only way one could be a jew is if one has a Jewish mother. I could go on all day about the experiences and policies of other nations, but these few are enough.
And of course we must evaluate the effects of immigration into Austria itself already. Already we find massive problems related to crime, unemployment, housing, welfare, block voting, terrorism, lower quality of life etc.. They can not even fix the problems from immigrants already, but yet they demand more ? Why not give the immigrants who already live in Austria and have massive unemployment jobs, before you bring afew million more in.
I don't think birth rates is an issue. The Austrian birth rate is approximately 1.7 or something. It could not be so hard to raise a birth rate less than half of a percentage point. They raised the birth rate in Denmark, Japan and Ierland when it was necessary. The recent "decline" in birth rates from 2008-2010 is nothing to worry about, because there was a financial crisis and birth rates often fall in a financial crisis. There is also the issue of Austrians who do want to have children, but can't because it is not convenient, lack of good housing, fast paced life, high taxes, lack of financial or cultural confidence, etc... One could easily adress these issues and raise the birth rate. All of these problems will increase with the population expansion and social effects of immigration and immigration will decrease the birth rate even more.
Even if birth rates were the reason for promoting mass immigration, would one not agree that brining in 100,000 foreigners into a small nation with 8 million people is a last resort or drastic solution ? Immigration of so many is irreversible. It is also much more difficult and risky than simply attempting to raise the national birth rate by half a percentage point. Offices of immigration may have to be established, things may not go according to plan and language barriers to be overcome. In addition the usual problems such as crime and others would apear. All the problems cost millions at a minimum. The recession may also unexpectedly return. Furthermore what if you bring in all the immigrants, then problems appear and you think you made a mistake ? then what ?
We must also consider the numbers and do the math. Austria also already has immigration. Thousands of Asylum seekers come illegaly and what not. Not only will you have "active" legal immigration, but also illegal immigration. Furthermore these 100,000 immigrants will inevitably bring their familes. They could also have a higher birth rate than whatever is left of the native austrians. 100,000 immigrants will easily turn into 100,000,000 immigrants. And won't the same circumstances which cause the low birth rate in Austria still exist after you bring the immigrants in ? Therefore we can conclude that 100,000 will not be enough, but you will have to bring in more and more and more and more....
I also question the "skilled immigrants" argument. The educational standards in other nations are far below western nations. A medical degree from india is NOT the same as an Austrian degree. This loophole is readily open to abuse. And just because an immigrant is "skilled" it does not mean there will be no problems. Having a "Skill" does not translate into a job. There are plenty of unemployed people with skills, because the skills might not in be demand. How do you contemplate that you will bring in 100,000 doctors and engineers in 20 years and give them work in their career field at good wages ? And your definition of "skills" is questionable, you think that a waiter or carpenter is a skilled professional. In reality that is a menial job that any austrian could be trained to do. The "skilled" immigration idea is nothing new and has been a failure in other nations. Furthermore, so what if they are "skilled" they are still foreigners and it is 100,000 + of them.
I also do not see a deficit of talent in the Austrian population. Austria has a very high number of college graduates, which is almost above average in number. According to wikioedia, it even says Austrian college grads are so numerous that they have trouble finding jobs in their field. The average Austrian IQ is also higher than most nations in the world, including other European nations. Some of the most famous inventors and musicians have come from Austria, such as Gaston Glock. Austrians have also become celebrities such as Arnold Schwarzenneger. I sincerely doubt the imported foreigners could be better than the Austrians and that there is anything Austrians can't do.
I personally wonder why a center right party like the OVP would take such an extreme left wing position on immigration. I would imagine the sister parties of the OVP are the Republicans and conservatives in the UK--BOTH parties fundamentally opposed to mass immigration. David Cameron recently ended mass immigration, which was established by the left labour party in the UK to build up the leftist vote. And The Republicans have just gone wild on the immigrant issue lately. can we not learn from this situation ?
When you study the politics and voting trends of nations affected by mass immigration such as the USA and UK, you generally find that it disadvantages a right leaning or free market political party. In the USA the democratic party is almost entirely ethnic and religious minority, with the exception of afew white liberal zealot marxists like hillary clinton. In contrast the Republican party is almost entirely White and christian, despite massive outreach to minority communities and having a Black chairman once. The reason for this is not racism or bias, but rather the fact that only certain issues resonate with them and diferent groups have different interests. Those immigrant people tend to support socialist policies and governemnt benefits more and want resources, not for the entire community but only for their ethnic group/self interest. Thus social/political cohesion is destroyed by a diverse society and political affiliation is based on ethnicity, religion or race by coincidence.
If we were to transalte block voting into Austria, we would find a gain in Green votes and some SPO, but not OVP, and possibly some gains for FPO beause the remaining Austrians would probably be upset if the immigration produces negative results. From what I understand, Green is already dispraportionately immigrant and will grow with the new arrivals. I doubt the new arrivals would the OVP support.
There is no moral foundation for this mass immigration. Austria has NO colonial history in the third world. Austria is far too small to accomodate large numbers of people, And using thousands of foreign immigrants to replace the indigenous Austrian people is an act of genocide of the worst kind. If hundreds of thousands of Austrians were coming into Africa and native Africans were dissapearing and losing their way of life, what would you say ? Would you say these Austrians could just learn Zulu and would be exactly the same ? If Austria was humanitarian, they would preserve their people culture and way of life for other people and be the best they could be and others would follow. A person with hatred for their own people can have no love for other peoples. Furthermore, EVERY nation has immigration policies which favor themselves. Also the immigration itself will inevitably and unintentionally destroy the host nation, leaving nothing for anyone in time. In the end neither the Austrian, or the imigrant would benefit.
One may also view the immigrants as being discriminated against, but in reality the Austrian will be discriminated against. In every nation that has accepted immigration the immigrant population is often unkind to host citizens. In schools immigrants often bully and abuse other students. The native culture is generally not respected or appreciated. Their politicians when participating in democracy also often advocate active discrimination under law against native people. In the United states this discrimination takes the form of "Affirmative Action" where immigrants and people of color are favored for hiring, promotion, college admissions, loans and housing. In Germany Affirmative Action also exists-- recently in berlin leftist parties upported by ethnic minority voters introduced affimative action to the Berlin area.
I think personally Austria is perfectly fine and does not need 100,000 immigrants. I have talked to many Austrians and find them very intelligent (although a bit naive at times) The women are very atractive looking. The culture of the people and history is also very interesing. I don't know why one would wish to change it into something completely different. When I travel, or my family travels, I want them to see it the way it was and be able to experience the people. The country will never be the same with 100,000, 000 immigrants and I know from expereince it won't change for the better. These great people will just destoy themselves and it is very difficult to watch.History is repeating itself . One may also say that there will be no problems and non of the issues mentioned will appear, but in reality as soon as you let them in, you will have no control over what happens and the warning signs are as clear as day.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)