Sunday, July 12, 2009

Australia has an Overseas Spouse Quota Fixed at 50,000 a Year

Update May,2007.After 10 years of an overseas spouse quota of 30,00 a year John Howard has inceased it to 50,000 a year.[John Howard still has a Racist blacklist of people from 37 mostly non-white countries that are automatically denied tourist or any other kind of visa to visit Australia unless they have Big Bucks]

The following is an article from the "Sydney Morning Herald"September, 17th, 1996.


The Government will cap and kill applications by Australians to bring their overseas spouses into Australia a move which would see long-term separations of married couples unless the Opposition allows through the Senate tough new measures to curb applications.
The Minister for Immigration, Mr Ruddock,said the draconian move,allowable under present law but never used in relation to spouses, would help curb huge increases in applications for spouses, some of which were shams, but others 'a fraud on Australians'.
Under present practise,applications for offshore spouses to come are allowed regardless of the quota set.Mr Ruddock wants to enforce his quota by a cap and queue regulation, making applicants after the qouta is reached to wait, possibly for months, until heading the queue for next years intake.
But in the face of Labor opposition in the Senate, he threatened to use his general cap and kill power to terminate applications made post-qouta.This would force Australians to apply again next year on equal terms with next year's applicants, causing indefinite separations.
Mr Ruddock's threat, which contradicts the Coalition's strong pro-family rhetoric but is part of a clampdown on migration numbers,was denounced by Labor's immigration spokeman, Mr Duncan Kerr, as social engineering.
The Opposition last week knocked off in the Senate one of several changes to regulations to tighten elegibility for 'preferential family' migration,available to spouses and aged parents.Mr Kerr told the Herald Labor would also disallow Mr Ruddock's cap and queue regulation.
Mr Ruddock told the Herald that if people who had already applied were allowed in,the progam would overstep this year's 36,700 quota by about 13,000.Rather than allow an overshoot, he would use his general power under current law to cap and kill,unless Labor stopped trying to micro-manage his immigration program by disallowing regulations in the Senate.
Mr Kerr said that Australians have always exercised their own choice on who they'll marry,and I don't believe any red-blooded Australian will allow the Government to force couples to queue up to live together.Now he's saying if he can't queue them he'll cut them off.
'If you meet and marry in January,thats OK,but if you're a December bride or groom you mightn't be able to get your spouse in for years.'
Mr Ruddock said he did not regard cap and terminate as the best outcome, but if it is necessary I will be applying it.
He said Labor had maintained a steady 37,000 quota for four years,before lifting it last year to 50,000.Many people had reported partners 'walking out the door as soon as they arrive in Australia.' 'The fraud is being occasioned on Australians by people seeking to migrate,' he said.
Mr Kerr blamed the increase on the wash-up of the Tiananmen Square massacre,under which Labor granted 40,000 Chinese people refugee status.But Mr Ruddock said there rises in applications accross the board, and the percentage increase was as great in England."

This article is from 'Star and South African Times' Page 2.September, 16th, 1997.

"Crossed lines seemed to proliferate in South Africa last week as former commanders of the police and armed forces played semantics at the Truth Commission.They said that words eliminate, make a plan,remove,and wipe out meant nothing more than to detain.To those carrying out the orders-most of whom are now seeking amnesty-the instructions meant the target was to be killed."

Article from the Sydney Morning Herald.November 26th, 2002.

"Australia should cut its immigration intake by a third-to 80,000 a year-because Sydney cannot cope with the population surge it causes for the nation's biggest city, the Premier, Bob Carr, believes."
[He wants the total intake reduced to 80,000.Bob Carr was the LABOR Premier of New South Wales until very recently.He continually appealed to Phillip Ruddock and John Howard to cut the immigration intake.Malcolm Fraser the former conservative leader would like to see Australia's population at 50 million.He says that unless this happens Australia will be marginalised in the world]
Article from the Sydney Morning Herald.10th [month?] 2.


" The Federal Government will begin imposing caps on parts of its immigration program, forcing migrants who have satisfied criteria for entry to wait until next financial year before being granted final approval to resettle."

Article from the Sydney Morning Herald.August, 25th, 1997.


"reactionary bean counters' viewed families as a burden and believed the only people who should be allowed to migrate to Australia were individuals with money.
Australia was simply lucky to get away with those old discriminations but we will not be so lucky again.The world turned on apartheid South Africa.I don't want Australia to become the new world target because racism is allowed to penetrate our political and administritive systems."
[From the outgoing head of the Ethnic Communties Council of NSW.]


From TheWorld Socialist Website

The new "White Australia" Policy By Mike Head 20 January 1999

The Australian government's decision to refuse a visitor's visa to Rajendiram Sutharsan, a Tamil member of the Socialist Equality Party of Sri Lanka, is part of a wider crackdown not only against visitors but also aimed at refugees and immigrants from Sri Lanka and other impoverished, particularly Asian, countries.

After his application was initially rejected on December 30, the Socialist Equality Party of Australia provided the Australian High Commission in Sri Lanka with abundant documentary evidence that Sutharsan had been invited to participate in the party's summer educational school and to stay for two weeks for meetings and discussions with workers and youth on his recent release from detention by the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. As requested, the SEP guaranteed Sutharsan's return to Sri Lanka and gave details of its financial support for the visit, including the provision of a return air fare.

Yet the ban on his visit was maintained, on the basis that he would pose an "unacceptably high risk" of overstaying his visa. Jan Cleland, second secretary (immigration) in the High Commission, said the decision had been made "in the interests of consistent decision making". She asserted that Sutharsan had "characteristics in common with the applicants at risk of overstaying". She refused to elaborate on the criteria applied or explain how Sutharsan could prove his commitment to return to Sri Lanka.

Her statements indicate that many working class people from Sri Lanka and elsewhere in Asia have been denied visas as a matter of policy. Immigration officials gave similar reasons for the initial refusal of visas for the world-renowned Thang Long Water Puppet Troupe of Hanoi to perform at the Sydney Festival. This month Australian officials in Islamabad used the same methods to refuse entry to Farida Zaheer, chairwoman of Pakistan's national textile union, who had been invited to attend an international union conference in Sydney.

After objections by Sydney Festival organisers and trade union officials, the decisions in the latter two cases were reversed after further details of their arrangements were supplied to the government. However, Sutharsan's exclusion has remained, pointing to political discrimination as well as underlying discrimination on the basis of race and economic status.

Further inquiries by the World Socialist Web Site have confirmed that a virtual blanket exclusion applies to visitors from countries--particularly those in Asia, the Middle East, South America and Eastern Europe--whose residents are classified as "risk factors". Moreover, behind this policy stands a general clampdown on people from Asia and other impoverished regions, whether they are seeking to visit, apply for refugee status or immigrate.

Part One

The visitors' blacklist
Unbeknown to those seeking to visit Australia-whether as tourists, for family reasons or for political purposes-the government has a blacklist of countries from which visa applications are almost automatically rejected.

Aside from a host of other arbitrary requirements--such as passing medical tests and proving their "good character"--those applying for short-term visitor's visas must show that their visit is "genuine," that is, that they will not seek to stay in the country, either by overstaying their visa or applying for refugee status.

In applying this test, the government maintains a long list specifying, by age and gender, people from particular countries who are regarded as "risk factors". Those classified in this way will have their applications rejected unless they can prove that there is "very little likelihood" that they will remain in Australia after the expiry of their visa.

There are 37 countries on the list that was gazetted by Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Minister Philip Ruddock on 24 June 1997. Most are Asian-Pacific countries, as well as South American, Middle Eastern and Eastern European, plus two southern European--Portugal and Greece, the two poorest states in Western Europe.

The list reads:
Bangladesh, Burma, Cambodia, Chile, China, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Egypt, Fiji, Greece, Hungary, India, Iran, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Macedonia, Mauritius, Nauru, Pakistan, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Samoa, Slovakia, Sri Lanka, Syria, Tonga, Turkey, Ukraine, Uruguay, Vanuatu, Vietnam and Yugoslavia.

Residents of these countries are banned according to various age and sex categories. For Sri Lanka, the list specifies four separate "classes": males aged 25 to 39 inclusive, males 60 years or older, females aged 20 to 39 inclusive and females 50 years or older. For some other countries, the categories are even more sweeping. For the Pacific islands of Tonga and Samoa, for example, both males and females aged 20 years or older are barred. The same applies to Lebanon, the Philippines, Poland and Turkey.

Those applying for visitors' visas from these countries are not told about the blacklist, nor that they must prove their commitment to return home. Instead, official brochures declare: "Australia has a non-discriminatory immigration policy" that treats all equally, "regardless of their ethnic origin, their gender, colour or religion".

Applicants are supplied with information forms that state: "Australia welcomes visitors and we try to keep formalities to a minimum." The only hint of any further requirement occurs under a heading: "Do I need a sponsor?" The answer given is: "No. However, evidence of support from relatives or friends in Australia may be asked for."

The blacklist is also kept a secret from the relatives and friends of those seeking to visit. Australian working people in general know nothing about it either. The 1997 gazette promulgated by Ruddock, number S241 of 1997, is not even generally available. Government bookshops no longer sell it, and it is not on the Internet. National and state libraries may possibly have copies.

The precise legal test imposed by the government, set out obscurely in paragraph 4011(1) of Schedule 4 of the 1994 Migration Regulations, requires an applicant on the "risk factor" list to "satisfy the Minister that, having regard to the applicant's circumstances in the applicant's country of usual residence, there is very little likelihood that the applicant will remain" after the expiry of a visa.

Even if applicants are finally told of this test, it is, by definition, almost impossible to satisfy in any objective sense. It requires applicants to prove a negative. How does one demonstrate the non-existence of a likelihood? The few appeal cases that exist suggest that only those with lucrative business or employment ties to their home country, or with a high level of financial commitment by a sponsor, have succeeded.

Applicants often know nothing of the test until they have been rejected--and then they have no right of review. Their only possible appeal lies in a challenge on a point of law in the Federal Court, an extremely expensive, uncertain and protracted process, particularly for someone living far away in a poor country. If they have a close relative living in Australia, that relative may apply for a review of the merits of the case by a body called the Migration Internal Review Office (MIRO) and then lodge an appeal with the Immigration Review Tribunal, again an expensive and time-consuming process.

In one recent successful appeal to the Tribunal on behalf of a Chinese small businesswoman, the decision was finally overturned a year and a half after the first application.

A lawyer who does volunteer work for immigrant families said rejections of visitor's visas and even delays can have "severe consequences" financially and emotionally. Working families crimp and save to pay for visits by relatives and often organise visits to coincide with birthdays or other special events, only to have their hopes dashed at the last minute. He confirmed that such experiences are now widespread in immigrant communities.

By canvassing homes in just one Sydney suburban street, the WSWS spoke to numerous people who have had heartbreaking experiences. One woman from northern Sri Lanka, now a factory worker and single parent, failed to get permission for her 70-year-old mother to visit from Jaffna, the main city in the war-torn Tamil region. She has not seen her mother for two decades and her daughter has never met her grandmother. She raised the money for a return air ticket, but could not raise the $6,000 bond that the immigration department also required.

It took three months and much bureaucratic buck-passing for an Indian engineer to obtain permission for his parents to visit for two months. A young Egyptian worker was not allowed a visit by his father.

This blacklist was first introduced by the previous Labor Party government and then extended by Ruddock in 1997 on behalf of the present Howard Liberal-National Party government. According to another immigration lawyer, the government claims that the list is drafted on the basis of a statistical analysis of the rate of visa overstaying that has occurred for each "class" of applicants. In this way, governments, both Labor and Liberal, have introduced a form of collective punishment for the alleged offences of a few.

By the immigration department's own figures, the rate of overstaying is extremely low, even for countries on the list. The rate ranges from 4.5 percent for Tonga and 1.6 percent for Sri Lanka down to near zero, with an overall rate of 0.2 percent among 2.7 million non-business visitors annually.

The same figures also reveal that the two countries with the most overstayers are the United Kingdom and the United States. Japan and Germany are also on the list of 10 countries with the greatest number of overstayers. Between them, they account for nearly 30 percent of all those whose visas have expired. Apart from being predominantly "white," these countries are crucial to Australian business for trade, tourism and investment. There is no suggestion, therefore, that their citizens be placed on the blacklist.

Human rights organisations and concerned lawyers opposed the Labor government's original imposition of this racially discriminatory policy. Some pointed out that it constituted a de facto reimposition of the infamous White Australia policy. From Federation in 1901 to the mid-1960s, when the policy was formally dropped for business reasons, only those with "white" skin were allowed to enter Australia.

The lawyer who voluntarily assists immigrants commented that the use of statistical profiles to exclude people from certain parts of the world could be illegal under the Racial Discrimination Act. He noted that, as was the case with the White Australia policy in the 1930s, arbitrary criteria are used to exclude applicants while denying an explicit racial bias. In the 1930s, the authorities imposed language tests; today "risk factor profiles" are employed. "The government uses a statistical analysis to mask other concerns," he said. "We fear that it will only get worse as the government moves to abolish all appeals to the courts."

In the wake of the financial and economic meltdown in Southeast Asia, Russia and Latin America, the Australian government is intensifying its measures to bar entry to working people from Asia and other poor regions. In Sutharsan's case, the government is not only trampling on his democratic rights but also those of workers and youth in Australia to free speech and political association. On a wider scale, thousands of people are being denied the basic democratic right to travel, visit relatives and friends and engage in discussions wherever they choose.

Part Two

Racial bias in refugee policy
On its Internet site, the Australian Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs claims that: "The Australian Government is strongly committed to helping refugees and people who faced serious abuses of their human rights."

It continues: "Like Australia's Migration Program for non-humanitarian migrants, the Humanitarian Program is non-discriminatory and helps people in need from all parts of the world."

Yet the government maintains a blacklist that excludes visitors from many Asian and other poor countries, with the express purpose of preventing people from those countries overstaying their visas or exercising their legal rights to apply for refugee or humanitarian status once in Australia.

Only 6,000 refugees will be accepted in 1998-99, including 2,000 who apply after arriving in Australia, with another 6,000 people allowed entry on humanitarian grounds. Most will come from the former Yugoslavia, certain Middle Eastern countries (particularly opponents of the regimes in Iraq and Iran) and selected African states. Not a single person from Asia will be allowed to apply from overseas for refugee status or a humanitarian visa. Under the category of special assistance, less than 200 will be admitted in total from Thailand, Sri Lanka and Vietnam.

Like most governments around the world, the administration in Canberra applies an extremely narrow definition of what constitutes a refugee--based on the 1951 Geneva Convention on Refugees. Those seeking asylum must prove a "well-founded fear" of death, serious injury or persecution on religious, racial, national, social or political grounds. This test is designed to exclude the vast majority of refugees--those fleeing war, poverty and hunger.

There is a "Special Humanitarian Program" but it is also highly restrictive. Applicants must show that they have suffered discrimination amounting to gross violation of human rights, plus strong support from an Australian resident or community group. Those displaced by war can apply under a special assistance program, but in most cases they must have close family members with residence status in Australia. So-called economic refugees--those seeking to escape economic hardship--are strictly excluded.

The government's pre-determined quota of 2,000 for those seeking refugee status from within Australia means that even if people manage to enter the country, whether it be on a visitor's visa or via a hazardous illegal journey by air or sea, those asking for asylum have little chance of success. Regardless of the merits of their case, they will not be allowed to stay. During 1996-97, 14,493 applications were processed. Only 1,304 were granted, leaving 12,374 facing deportation.

According to one immigration lawyer, the official policy is that those who manage to get into Australia are, by definition, not refugees. If they can raise the resources for an air ticket or a sea voyage, the argument goes, they are not in genuine need. This, of course, ignores the reality that people will endure great hardship if there is a prospect of escaping oppression.

In addition, a distinct racial pattern exists. In the same period--1996-97--350 refugees arrived by small boats on the country's northern shores, four-fifths from Asia. Just 67 were granted asylum, none of them Asian.

The Department has refused to detail the country-by-country rejection rates for all refugee applicants, but a similar picture emerges in statistics from the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT). The previous Labor government established this government-appointed body in 1993 to handle appeals by rejected onshore refugee applicants. Labor's primary aim was to restrict access to the courts. In July 1997 the present government tried to discourage appeals to the RRT itself by imposing a $1,000 fee for applications.

Even so, some 30,458 people lodged appeals with the RRT between 1993 and 1998--but only 2,489 succeeded. In 1997-98, just 1 percent of appeals from Indonesian refugees succeeded, only 4 percent from China, and none from the Philippines, compared to an average success rate of 10 percent.

To take Indonesia, Australia's nearest neighbour, as an example, the official attitude hardened despite the collapse of the country's currency and economy, with catastrophic implications for millions of workers and peasants. Of the 1,274 Indonesia appeals decided by the RRT in 1997-98, a mere 12 succeeded--less than 1 percent. Over the five years since 1993, just 69 out of 2,160 succeeded--about 3.2 percent.

Success rates from other Asian-Pacific countries, including Thailand, Bangladesh, South Korea, Fiji and Tonga are also extremely low. Only five Fijians out of 1,383 applicants have won cases in the RRT since 1993, and just one out of 570 from Tonga.

One explicit aim of these rejections is to discourage Asian asylum seekers altogether.

Discussing the statistics with the Australian newspaper last week, the acting RRT chief Peter Nygh emphasised a dramatic decline in appeals from the Philippines--they nearly halved from 1,624 in 1996-97 to 782 in 1997-98. It seems that the zero rate of success for Filipino refugees is having the desired effect.

Until recently, Sri Lanka has been a relative exception. The RRT has allowed about 30 percent of appeals from that country over five years. However the Howard government is now cracking down on Sri Lankan refugees, despite the Kumaratunga government's continuing war against the Tamil population in the north and east of the island. Canberra is currently seeking to deport hundreds back to Sri Lanka, refusing to renew humanitarian visas granted since November 1993.

The Howard government has also followed in the footsteps of the Labor Party in blocking refugee access to the courts. Under the rules established by Labor, refugees cannot appeal from the RRT to the Federal Court in cases of bias or other denials of natural justice.

Since 1993, some 1,400 applicants have gone to the Federal Court (7.5 percent of RRT decisions), with a success rate of just 18 percent. Most of these legal victories were only partial, because four out of five were simply remitted by the court for reconsideration by the RRT. In all, less than 50 asylum seekers have had an outright legal victory in five years.

Nevertheless, Prime Minister John Howard and Immigration and Multicultural Affairs Minister Philip Ruddock last month denounced Federal Court judges for allowing appeals, accusing them of undermining government policy. Ruddock announced new legislation to further restrict legal appeals.

Meanwhile, about 8,000 applicants are still waiting for their appeals to be heard. In some cases they wait for years. Several hundred are held in terrible conditions in concentration camp-style detention centres. The Villawood centre in Sydney has a capacity of 270, Maribyrnong in Melbourne can hold 70 and Perth can take 40. By far the largest is the remote Port Hedland Reception and Processing Centre in north-western Australia, with a capacity of 700.

During 1997-98, 2,716 "unlawful non-citizens" were detained for a total of 152,061 days. At June 30, 1998 there were 375 detainees.

All refugees arriving by boats and other so-called illegal entrants are automatically imprisoned in these centres, without trial, pending their forced removal from the country. In 1994, the previous Labor government pushed through legislation requiring all those overstaying their visas to be detained indefinitely as well, until they are deported. The legislation effectively scrapped the fundamental principle of habeas corpus --no detention without trial.

Part Three

Immigration: discrimination by race and wealth

According to the Australian government, one of the main accomplishments of its revamped immigration policy since 1996 has been the use of stricter English language tests, combined with tougher skills requirements, to cut the number of people applying to migrate.

Under the heading of "achievements", the Department of Immigration and Multicultural Affairs' web site boasts of a "stronger emphasis on migrants' skills, qualifications and English-language ability, leading to a worldwide reduction in the number of migration applications."

Over the past decade, settler arrivals have almost halved-from 143,490 in 1987-88 to 77,327 in 1997-98. The target for 1998-99 is 68,000. When those who leave the country are taken into account, the net permanent migration rate is today only about one-third the level of 1987-88, falling from 123,669 to 45,342.

Most of those permitted to settle come from predominantly "white" countries. Arrivals from New Zealand, Europe, the former Soviet Union, South Africa and North America make up about 60 percent of the total. The proportion coming from Southeast Asia has been cut from 20.6 percent to 12.5 percent. In 1987-88, 29,500 people were permitted to immigrate from Southeast Asia; in 1997-98 there were just 9,700.

The use of language and skills tests to discriminate by race and economic status has a specific history in Australia. Until the mid-1960s, when growing dependence on exports to Japan and other Asian markets forced an adjustment, both Labor and conservative governments maintained a "White Australia" policy, restricting immigration to selected people from Europe. Prior to the late 1940s, when the demand for cheap labour motivated a shift, the policy even excluded people from southern Europe, including Italy, Greece and Spain, whose skins were regarded as swarthy.

From the first Immigration Restriction Act passed by the newly-formed Australian parliament in 1901, one of the key means for implementing this racist policy was the infamous "dictation test". Those wishing to immigrate, or even enter the country, had to pass a language examination, conducted in English or any other European language selected by immigration officials.

The Labor Party was the prime mover of this policy. Its federal parliamentary caucus meeting on July 31, 1901 passed two crucial motions. "That the Party work for the total exclusion of coloured people whether British subjects or not," stated one. "That the Party approves of the Educational test as to coloured British subjects, with such amendments as may seem necessary; but opposes absolutely the admission of all coloured aliens," declared the second.

The dictation test was also used for political purposes. The most notorious case was that of Egon Kisch, a Czechoslovakian writer refused entry by the Lyons government to attend an anti-war congress in 1934. The government first sought to exclude Kisch as a communist; then after he jumped ashore from a ship, arrested him and administered a dictation test. Because Kisch was fluent in many languages--including English--the authorities chose Scottish Gaelic.

The dictation test was formally withdrawn in 1959 and the Labor, Country and Liberal parties removed "White Australia" from their platforms in 1965. But in July 1992, after slashing migrant intakes, the Keating Labor government introduced a test of vocational English proficiency into the points system for screening applicants for entry as skilled migrants.

Since 1996 the current Howard government has built on Labor's lead. In the words of its official handouts, "the focus of the Migration Program has shifted, ensuring it is more closely aligned to Australia's economic interests by delivering people with needed skills and expertise".

Alongside the new English tests, pass marks in skills tests have been raised, in some cases to record levels, to screen out those not wanted. While reducing the annual intake, the government has increased the skilled migration component--designed to directly serve the needs of employers--from 22 percent to more than 50 percent.

In order to do so, it has imposed limits, or caps, on the numbers allowed entry for family reasons. Immigrant families, especially those from Asia and other poorer regions, now face almost insurmountable difficulties sponsoring parents who wish to join them, let alone siblings, other relatives and fiancées. Applications in the latter category have fallen by 45 percent.

New schemes have been introduced to fill much more of the annual quota with business people and personnel recruited by employers.

Under the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme, companies in regional or remote locations can recruit skilled employees from overseas. Another scheme allows State and Territory governments to sponsor skilled migrants for use in the local workforce. In addition, business people who bring in cash and own an enterprise in a designated regional area for at least two years can then qualify for permanent residency. These new programs effectively establish remote zones where immigrants, whether employees or small business people, must remain for set periods before being permitted to live elsewhere. The government has also expanded the previous Labor government's Employer Nomination Scheme, which gives priority migration processing to employees that companies recruit abroad.

In every respect, the needs of business now dominate. Immigration department offices feature business centres, "providing a comprehensive and streamlined service to the business community". Free advice is available on how to gain residence for business purposes or recruit selected foreign personnel.

The corporate elite can literally buy their way into the country. If they invest more than $750,000 into a government security or have net business assets exceeding $300,000, they qualify for resident status on the grounds of "business skills". Others can quickly obtain Long Stay Business Visas for periods of up to four years. On arrival and departure from Australian airports they receive preferential queuing treatment.

So as not to damage Asian business prospects, the Howard government and its Labor opposition both claim to oppose the anti-Asian racism of Pauline Hanson's One Nation party. Formally, they urge voters to place One Nation last on ballot papers in elections. In reality, their policies--visitors' blacklists, exclusion of refugees, and the revival of "White Australia" language tests--have the same orientation. Moreover, they are responsible for the deteriorating social conditions that have provided fertile ground for extreme right-wing elements such as Hanson who seek to make immigrants, together with Aborigines, the unemployed and welfare recipients, the scapegoats for falling living standards.

Everyone should enjoy, as fundamental democratic rights, the opportunity to travel freely, visit family and friends, meet with people anywhere in the world, and live wherever they choose. For the first time in human history, the technological advances in transport and communication make this feasible. Yet, as the Australian government's policies illustrate, while capital, corporate executives and wealthy individuals move around the globe without barriers, these elementary rights are increasingly denied to the vast majority of ordinary people.
Update July 2009 Sydney Morning Herald

Australia now has 420,000 overseas students including 90,000 Indian Students

Sydney Morning Herald May 3 2006 Page 3

"This year there are almost 250,000 overseas students enrolled at universities, TAFES and private training organisations according to the Department of Science,Education and Training."

Sydney Morning Herald May 4 2006 Page 3

"The Tourism and Transport Forum lobby welcomed the six month limit,saying three months was too short for employers to benefit from training overseas backpackers,of which there was 500,000 last year."
The Observer [Newspaper-England] Sunday August 13, 2006

'There are at least 400,000 new Polish arrivals in Britain, and many others from neighbouring countries.'

John Howard and his Liberal Party have statistics up their arses.

Here are 920,000 permanent visitors to Australia.[These numbers do not include tourists and migrants] All in the age group of 18-25 applying for a foreign spouse quota of 30,000 a year

If the Austrians did this in Europe you would say they were anti-immigrant and call them neo-nazis.

It can take at least 3 months to process a spouse visa from England, Ireland and America.It can take up to 2 years to process a spouse visa from Vietnam or China.The British and Americans can come here as tourists while their spouse visas are being processed and the mostly non-white cannot get tourist visas.


JOHN HOWARD-The Lying Rodent.John Howard wants free trade but not the free movement of people.He thinks Australias biggest assets are its sheep, coal and uranium not people.He says he has the final solution to our problems "Too many people."

MORE NEWS AT TheHungryMile.blogspot