Another Good Refugee?

Monday, 21 March 2011 11:40 Cassandra Jihad - Barbarisation of Host Societies
Print

Michael Galak, in an article, How to Choose Better Immigrants, suggested selecting immigrants according to the record of immigrant groups already settled in Australia.

As an indicator of future behaviour, the past is one of the most reliable predictors we have. When we look for someone to do a job of work, the most important criterion in our decision is the previous experience of the individual... The assessment of an individual’s dangerousness is also based mostly on any history of violence.  

 If we were to accept that a group of people from the same background would, statistically, have some common features, then the same group of people would statistically have similar responses to the same conditions, pressures and challenges…It therefore makes no sense not to use the previous integration and absorption track record of various immigrant groups in assessing their future members’ statistical suitability for settlement in Australia…If certain groups are unsuccessful in the process of integration in Australia, should not we start asking hard-nosed questions: 

• Do we want these people? 
• Do we need these people? 
• Are they likely to be successfully absorbed and integrated into the complex and multicoloured fabric of contemporary Australia? 
• Are they likely to be a drain on the public purse? 
• Are members of these groups so reliant on government largesse that they draw unemployment benefits generation after generation?
• Are they peaceful? 
• Is there statistically valid evidence of increased violent crime or incarceration among the group? 
• Are they paying their fair share of taxes? 
• Are subsequent generations, the children of the original immigrants, working, studying and intermarrying with Australians from outside their group?
• Or does this progeny give reasons for concern by their anti-social behaviour? 
On the other hand, with the groups that are successful in their integration efforts—should we not increase their immigration numbers and reduce or abolish completely the numbers of the unsuccessful?
(source)

I was reminded of this when I read an account of a young couple who recently pleaded guilty to drug offences:

A JUDGE has castigated a man for involving his wife in importing opium to Melbourne and told him to apologise to her as she wept beside him in a County Court dock.
Judge Liz Gaynor ensured an Arabic interpreter translated clearly for Reza Alkhafaji as she criticised him for causing Somayeh Bildash's court appearance.
''This not a good way to treat your wife, this is not a humane way to treat your wife,'' she told Alkhafaji, who sponsored his wife to migrate Australia after their 2008 arranged marriage in Iran.
Bildash heard Judge Gaynor tell Alkhafaji, 34, he ''owed'' her an apology and ''kind treatment because you are very much in the wrong''.
The court was told Bildash, 26, had wanted to be a child carer, but instead cleaned toilets for $7 an hour and had been isolated in Melbourne with her husband who was addicted to opium.
A psychologist reported that she came from an extremely poor family in Iran, had no family in Melbourne and that the ''traditional'' marriage meant she had to obey her husband.
Defence lawyer Anthony Brand described her home life as ''terrible'', saying the cultural and traditional values in the relationship ''placed her in an almost impossible position''.
He agreed with Judge Gaynor that Bildash's role in the offence did not amount to ''marital coercion'' but it was close to it.
Prosecutor Sian Coidan said authorities found 990 grams of opium in the shoulder pads of four jackets in a bag addressed to Alkhafaji.
She agreed with Judge Gaynor that if it were not for Alkhafaji's drug habit, Bildash would not have offended.
Alkhafaji's lawyer, Christopher Farrington, said he was a qualified hairdresser who arrived illegally in Australia 10 years ago as a refugee, but had never worked and survived on a disability support pension.
Mr Farrington said Iraqi-born Alkhafaji became addicted after using opium for pain relief following two operations, while a psychologist found he was not antisocial or vulnerable to criminality.
(source)

I decided to apply Galak’s questions to this couple.

• Are they likely to be successfully absorbed and integrated into the complex and multicoloured fabric of contemporary Australia? 
NO. HE IS TREATING HIS WIFE EXACTLY AS HE WOULD TREAT HER IN AN ISLAMIC COUNTRY. SHE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO INTEGRATE AND ANY FUTURE CHILDREN WILL LIKELY BE SIMILARLY SEGREGATED.
• Are they likely to be a drain on the public purse? 
YES. HE HAS NEVER WORKED IN THE 10 YEARS HE HAS BEEN HERE AND DRAWS A DISABILITY SUPPORT PENSION.
• Are members of these groups so reliant on government largesse that they draw unemployment benefits generation after generation?
YES,
• Are they peaceful? 
UNKNOWN.
• Is there statistically valid evidence of increased violent crime or incarceration among the group? 
YES, GIVEN THAT THEIR HOME COUNTRIES ARE IRAN AND IRAQ.
• Are they paying their fair share of taxes? 
IT IS DOUBTFUL THAT THEY ARE PAYING ANY. INDEED THEIR CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES ARE COSTING THE TAXPAYERS MONEY.
AND BY THE WAY, HOW COME HE NEEDS AN INTERPRETER IF HE’S BEEN HERE 10 YEARS?
• Are subsequent generations, the children of the original immigrants, working, studying and intermarrying with Australians from outside their group?
WITH AN UNEMPLOYED FATHER AND SUBJUGATED MOTHER, CHANCES ARE ANY CHILDREN WILL BE UNPRODUCTIVE MEMBERS OF SOCIETY AT BEST.

Finally, I’ll leave 2 of Galak’s questions for readers to answer:

• Do we want these people? 
• Do we need these people?