Talking Sense on Immigration, At Last By James Reed
A little good news in the immigration war: Luke Foley is backing Abbott’s stand on immigration:
Andrew bolt has been good on this one:
“Liberal Ministers and pet journalists savaged Tony Abbott for telling the truth about our dangerously high levels of immigration. But facts and reason will out, and one Labor leader, at least, also has the guts to call out this madness: NSW Opposition Leader Luke Foley has backed Tony Abbott’s call for a closer look at immigration, including a cut to total numbers, saying that if elected he would push for the yearly intake to be decided by the state and federal governments in a proper “national population policy”. Mr Foley’s call for a more sensible immigration policy has echoes of former Labor premier Bob Carr’s “Sydney is full” pronouncement. Mr Foley argues the federal government “reaps the benefits” of higher immigration, through increased tax revenue, but that state governments “wear the cost” in having to meet infrastructure needs.
Alan Kohler describes a Ponzi scheme: Australian GDP grew by 2.4 per cent last year and per capita growth was 0.8 per cent. That is, two-thirds of last year’s economic growth came from population and most of that from immigration. And the corruption of political debate by personal hatreds and ambitions is clear: Tony Abbott might be right when he said in a recent speech: “My issue is not immigration; it’s the rate of immigration at a time of stagnant wages, clogged infrastructure, soaring house prices …”Treasurer Scott Morrison got stuck into him on the grounds that cutting immigration would cost the federal budget $5 billion a year, which kind of missed the point...”
Well, I have heard it all before, and sadly may still hear it, just before I pass away into oblivion. It is utterly amazing that the sheeple do not take to the streets on the immigration issue, and it shows the elites that basically they can do anything they like with the ordinary folk, because they are either (1) cowards; (2) dumb, or (3) all of the above.