Posts by jh
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
It's all settled then racist, racist, racist?
Why is Labour bombing? Look no further. -
Government is supposed to be in the best interests of New Zealanders:
Savings Working Group
January 2011“The big adverse gap in productivity between New Zealand and other countries opened up from the 1970s to the early 1990s. The policy choice that increased immigration – given the number of employers increasingly unable to pay First-World wages to the existing population and all the capital requirements that increasing populations involve – looks likely to have worked almost directly against the adjustment New Zealand needed to make and it might have been better off with a lower rate of net immigration. This adjustment would have involved a lower real interest rate (and cost of capital) and a lower real exchange rate, meaning a more favourable environment for raising the low level of productive capital per worker and labour productivity. The low level of capital per worker is a striking symptom of New Zealand’s economic challenge.
On other government policy issues, SWG recommendations include:
- A much more strategic and integrated approach to policy generally.
- Serious consideration of the impact of the level and variability of immigration on national saving, and the impact that this might have on the living standards of New Zealanders. There are indications that our high immigration rate has pushed up government spending, house prices and business borrowing.
- Improving data on household and business saving. -
I think the problem is that Russell Brown types live in a rarefied atmosphere. We go through a sorting early on in life and left-wing academics tend to hop in the lift to the top floor. It isn’t that they don't struggle but it is a struggle tempered by a probability of success. It is easy for these types to believe that the worlds problems can be solved by (eg) a road from Africa to Europe ("they will come and work and then go back").
There is also a degree of othering of lesser mortals. They see all that is bad in those chimpanzee they left at the bottom of the building; they are above human nature: they carry the light of the world and will cajole the chimpanzee with their eloquence and superior intellect.
p.s
I see the polls show Andrew Little still can't get the Labour car started. -
In Bed Together: Marxism, Capitalism, and Immigration [Diversity Dividend]
Far from being the natural defenders of the working classes, modern leftist parties are in bed with the forces of globalization and big business which cares nothing about the negative impact of mass immigration on the host society, to say nothing of protecting the working classes, the element in society most harmed by mass immigration and displacement, Ironically, workers naturally turn to leftist parties to protect their economic interests, only to find these parties support policies that drive down wages and transform communities, without seeking the consent of the working class.
Bolton demonstrates that organized labour in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century was the enthusiastic vanguard of opposition to mass immigration. In Australia, such eminent labour leaders as W.G Spence, Joseph Chifley, and Arthur Caldwell formed the frontline of labour opposition to cheap third world labour (Bolton, pp. 20-25). Far from being racists, these men were the champions of the Australian workman at a time when organized labour in that country was just beginning to establish itself as a force to be reckoned with. Indeed, at that time in British Commonwealth history, arguably the most effective opposition to mass immigration was provided by organized labour. This leadership was by no means mere xenophobes or bigots, as they would be characterized in today’s politically correct media. For labour leaders, opposing mass immigration was akin to protecting the economic and social livelihood of the working classes from unfair and detrimental competition.
http://www.immigrationwatchcanada.org/2015/05/04/in-bed-together-marxism-capitalism-and-immigration/
Quite a difference (and a whole new ball game).
-
The immigration policy review in 1986 was part of a much larger
agenda for change in New Zealand (Bedford 1996). It was not essentially a
change in state policy with a primary focus on one region of the world, as
Parr (2000:329) suggests, although clearly through the 1980s and 1990s
immigration from countries in Asia was a highly topical issue for both
politicians and the public. The attitudes of New Zealanders in the mid-1990s
towards immigration may not have reflected the positive perspective on the
value of diversity in our society that is contained in the Review of
Immigration Policy August 1986. But this does not mean that the globalisation
of immigration to New Zealand was an “unintended consequence of policy
changes in 1986”. It was a deliberate strategy, based on a premise that the
“infusion of new elements to New Zealand life has been of immense value to
the development of this country to date and will, as a result of this
Government’s review of immigration policy, become even more important in
the future” (Burke 1986:330). The data on arrivals, departures, approvals,
refugee flows and net migration gains and losses reported in this paper
indicates that “the infusion of new elements” into New Zealand society is
proceeding apace. There is no suggestion in immigration policy in 2002 that
this will not “become even more important in the future”, as Burke (1986)
assumed in the mid-1980s.New Zealand’s population is undergoing a profound transformation in
terms of its ethnic and cultural composition. This transformation is being
driven by two key processes. The first of these is differential ageing of the
major components of the resident population with the dominant “white”
population experiencing structural ageing more rapidly than the Maori and
Pacific Island components (Pool 1999). The second is international
migration which is seeing a replacement in numerical terms of tens of
thousands of New Zealanders who are moving overseas by immigrants from
countries in Asia, Europe and Africa especially. This process of population
replacement is occurring at a time when natural increase amongst all
components of the New Zealand resident population is falling. International
migration is thus playing an increasingly important role in changing the
ethnic and cultural composition of the population, but to understand this
role it is necessary to examine both the immigration of new residents as well
as the emigration of New Zealanders. Both dimensions are essential for
appreciating the globalisation of international migration in New Zealand.http://www.waikato.ac.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/76554/nzpr02-28-bedford.pdf
So Labour decided we need to replace the population and didn't feel it needed to ask the public? You would think that if something had been of "immense value" it shouldn't be a hard sell? This is a globalist agenda which attempts to break the notion of a nation state based on people who (largely) share a common ancestry (kinship) with a state where "nobody thinks they’re the cat's pyjamis". It is applied Marxism; yet you still think you can whistle and the NZ working classes will come running?
In other words (as in the UK) Labours globalists are at odds with the working classes.According to 3 News -Reid Research prior to the last election
62 percent of voters want tighter restrictions on immigration, while only 35 percent say leave it.
84 percent of NZ First voters want immigration restricted. Sixty-eight percent of Labour voters agree, along with 58 percent of Green Party voters.
-
Hard News: Diverse Auckland: are we…, in reply to Russell Brown,
But the numbers you cited are very strongly influenced by historical immigration laws and business conditions that no longer apply. They can’t be used to generalise about current migration rates and they’ll look quite different as the earlier years drop out of the 20-year period.
Hello 2015!
-
Hard News: Diverse Auckland: are we…, in reply to Chris Waugh,
Alright, on the negative side: Because refusing to welcome people just because they are somehow Different or Other is petty and narrow-minded and only serves to perpetuate conflict.
In fact homogeneous societies are more peaceful, give more to charity, spend more on public goods.
How is that even remotely relevant? Are you seriously trying to suggest that it’s Asian immigration that stopped people raising hens or growing veges? There couldn’t possibly be any other explanations for that?
I'm blaming population growth, the cost of infrastructure and a low wage economy which constrains growth outwards.
You can’t claim to be being colonised when you continue to hold all the power and privilege in society and your so-called colonisers are held on the outer.
At The Bananas (?) Diverse Bananas and Global Dragons: "Mai Chen will talk about minority/majority thinking, demographic trend towards a non-white majority". The goal of the Burke Review of Immigration was "population replacement". From the point of view of Europeans/Maori in NZ that's colonisation.
-
Hard News: Diverse Auckland: are we…, in reply to Sacha,
it depends on your definition of racism ?
hating butchers, bakers or candle-stick-makers is unlikely to feature
There's a difference between hating people because of their race and objecting to a foreign race reducing your ethnic group to a subaltern status.There is no territorial reciprocity (non wealthy NZr's aren't lining up to go there). The "immense benefits" spoken of in the Burke Review of Immigration (1986) are not evident to the majority (unless you work in construction or the education industry?)
-
Hard News: Diverse Auckland: are we…, in reply to Sacha,
Maori were right to be upset over colonisation (in some ways but not in others)
Ooh, do tell.
…………………………..
As clover killed the fern, and the European dog the Maori dog, as the Maori rat was destroyed by the pakeha rat, so our people also will be gradually supplanted and exterminated by the Europeans’.“
http://rsnz.natlib.govt.nz/volume/rsnz_55/rsnz_55_00_003930.html
duggledog (1,677 comments) says:
January 24th, 2015 at 8:47 am
Was talking to a Maori colleague last week, she’s relatively high up in the aristocracy in her particular tribe and knows a fair bit about what goes on in there. She said the average bro has a really, really bad feeling about all the Chinese that are popping up everywhere. She wouldn’t say exactly why the Chinese specifically, which started me wondering.
fernglas (217 comments) says:
January 24th, 2015 at 9:01 am
Duggledog.
Tell them to harden up; the Chinese are here to stay, just like us Pakeha
Vote: 16 1http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2015/01/general_debate_24_january_2015.html
That’s anecdotal (unlike the gently probing Asia NZ foundation)
“When an Indian Child has been brought up among us, taught our language and habituated to our Customs, yet if he goes to see his relations and make one Indian Ramble with them, there is no perswading him ever to return.”(2) But when European Americans “have been taken prisoners young by the Indians, and lived a while among them, tho’ ransomed by their Friends, and treated with all imaginable tenderness to prevail with them to stay among the English, yet in a Short time they become disgusted with our manner of life … and take the first good Opportunity of escaping again into the Woods, from whence there is no reclaiming them.” In 1785 Hector de Crèvecoeur asked two European refuseniks why they would not come home.
http://www.monbiot.com/2015/01/19/a-small-and-shuffling-life/
On the plus side: the leather shoe?
-
New migrants (because they are generally younger and better skilled than average) lower the mean age of the population and increase the number of net contributors vs net beneficiaries.
Migration is one of the few ways open to us to get production to the levels needed to support peoples retirement. (One alternative would be to cede Tauranga).Australian Productivity Commision
It is also a fallacy that higher immigration counteracts population ageing. Beyond an annual immigration level of around 100 000 people, the demographic benefits have been shown to diminish greatly, with migrants impacting much more on the size of the population than on its age structure. The main reason is that migrants age too! We would need to bring in increasingly more of them to ‘backfill’ the age structure over time. Indeed, the Commission calculated that to preserve the current age profile of the population, the immigration-to-population ratio would need to rise to three per cent (triple its peak of 2008-9). This would make Australia a population ‘super-power’ of 100+ million people by mid-century!
http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/111069/sustainable-population-proceedings.pdf