GarryP

Just because you aren't capable of seeing the rash of 'hate the immigrant' announcements as racism, doesn't mean others can't.

It's as much dog whistle as 'stop the boats (and ignore the planes)'.

scrubbedexpat098

Tosh mate, it's faux protectionism at worst. For it to be racism, would he not have to single out a race? The real issue is that you're incapable of NOT seeing racism

Amazulu

Your friend needs to do a bit of research. If he did he would that he could still apply for PR under the skilled-migration scheme. Yes, it will take longer to accomplish than a 457 but he would land in Australia with the ability to stay forever and to pick and choose his employer. He could even start his own business

He sounds like a bit of a drama queen!

Amazulu

Looks like the UK is joining the immigration cutting party:

https://www.ft.com/content/ae0b6066-...a-538b4cb30025

xizzles

He did try, but was (possibly mis)informed that accountants needed a high score which, given his age (zero points there but still younger than 55), would have been impossible. The 457 was his only realistic hope, or so he harped on about.

Gotta feel for the lot of them, to be honest. It's never funny when reality hits and dreams are dashed.

Amazulu

For those saying that these 457 changes are racist, you need to look at it this way:

Much of the visa abuse/unnecessary immigration in Australia has been from people/outfits from 3rd world or poorer countries - as is the case in most of the rest of the World. It just happens to be that the majority of these people are not white (maybe Anglo-Saxon might be a better term) - just the way it is. So any attempt to restrict migration may look racist to those who have an agenda/chip on shoulder/hatred etc, but in reality just reflects the way the world is currently ordered

spouse of scouse

Garry, I can smell a racist piece of legislation a mile off, and I don't think this particular proposed immigration/visa rules change is.

The change to citizenship requirements has a decided emphasis on the Islam bogeyman, as demonstrated by the comments from the Minister regarding questions applicants must answer - questions around religious freedom, gender equality and female genital mutilation. I don't think anyone would see it as a bad thing if applicants for Australian citizenship upheld the principles of religious freedom and gender equality, and are appalled by the practice of FGM.

However, I actually don't understand the point of asking those questions, because everyone who wants citizenship, no matter where they're from or what they believe in, will give the 'right' answer.

spouse of scouse

Definitely a tinge of the nationalist/protectionist about it, but I agree, not racist.

It's an equal opportunity kick in the teeth! I don't have a problem with it 'going forward', but I hate that it appears the new rules will be retrospective. People who are already on a defined pathway to PR and citizenship should be able to continue on that same pathway.

Amazulu

Fair enough. You really need to be under 45 to have an chance of getting skilled PR. I don't know if there is still a pathway to PR under the new system, although I'n sure there's a way

geoff52

Glad you did not come to Canada, the country is better off because of it.
I hope you will remain where you are, I am sure they deserve you.

xizzles

I'll put it on record right now. If being opposed to gender inequality (the female needing to be hidden from sight, kept silent and denied education, the right to vote or even to drive) and standing up to barbarism (such as the slaughter of non-combatants, suicidal bombings amidst shouts of "Allah U'Akhbar" and indiscriminate shooting of innocent bystanders) can be considered racist, then I'm guilty of being one.

Edited to add: keep 'em out, for all I care.

GarryP

Step back from it a bit, look at the painting rather than the brushwork.

When you had "stop the boats" it became fairly obvious that the way it was implemented and structured was mostly about keeping poor brown people out. At the same time there were people arriving by air that were claiming asylum, etc. that weren't stopped at all. And they certainly weren't worried about their health or happiness of the asylum seekers ....

Now, this particular piece of dog whistle politics needs to be seen in the context of Brexit and Trump's failed EOs. It's about 'keeping out the other' and a push to 'put up walls'. Why? Because the voting public have been taught to fear the immigrant, blame them for anything going wrong. And those immigrants in the minds eye of the public are brown skinned and 'different'.

The drive behind this isn't about jobs, it's about the racism that's been engendered in the public as someone to blame for what are actually failures of the politicians. It's about fear, not reality (which would be much more focused on corporate globalisation).

xizzles

My wife is "brown-skinned" (OK, yellow-skinned), and while she's had to face up to much abuse and racism during her time as a student some 40 years ago in England, she doesn't feel the revocation of the 457 (in its present format) is racist as much as it is protectionist (and drum-beating, chest-thumping, vote-buying).

Given the fact that she's experienced racism in its ugly form, I tend to give credence to her point of view on this.

scrubbedexpat098

Well since we're judging people on the strength of one post.......

Beoz

Retrospective? Where did you read that?