Australia, the Beacon of Sanity

Australia is once again making more sense than any other country on earth with regard to issues of culture and immigration. Like its Anglosphere cousins the United States and Canada, Australia's political economy, personal freedom, rule of law, and other characteristics inherited from the British, make it an extremely attractive place for immigrants. A continental land mass able to accommodate a greater population completes the package luring many, including many Muslims, to dream of a better life there than in their own home countries.

But unlike Canada, which has embraced a self—effacing attitude toward its own cultures, and the United States, which also pays obeisance to the pernicious self—abnegating doctrines of multiculturalism, Australia is unafraid to stand up and say that those wanting to come to Australia must adapt to the existing realities, not expect to change Australia into their home country, only with better weather and welfare benefits.

The BBC reports:

Australia is planning a radical strengthening of immigration laws that would require prospective citizens to take tough English language tests as well as a quiz on history and culture.

Critics have said the plans are patronising and insulting.

Actually, the critics have it backwards. It is quite insulting and patronizing to immigrate to a country and expect it to adapt to the very things one left behind. This is the behavior of a conqueror, not an immigrant.

By definition, an immigrant asks for the privilege of being allowed to live in a country not his or her own. Immigrants have no right to demand change. No more than I have a right to barge into your house and demand you rearrange the furniture, knock out the wall between the kitchen and family room, and paint the parlor walls a different color.

An immigrant stipulates that the country to which he or she goes has a superior system. Without such an attraction, why else leave behind family, friends, and the attachments of sentiment?

Lacking any thoughtful points, the opponents of testing in Australia resort to the cry of racism. Pardon me, but if race were the issue, certain races would not be allowed in. That, in fact, was characteristic of Australian immigration policies in an earlier era. But that is no longer the issue.

The BBC also reports that employers supposedly are worried that the new barriers will keep necessary workers from coming to Australia. That, too, is utter nonsense. Workers unwilling to adapt to local language and culture are not likely to be very good employees, willing to learn new skills, able to deal with fellow workers or customers.

The honest truth is that the Anglosphere has a superior political economy, and that is why the world wants to emigrate to our lands. Leftist multiculturalists, angry at their homelands and haunted by their own demons, have a need to believe that there is something wrong at home. Thus the insane mental construct that any change will be an improvement, even changes proposed by Sharia—embracing migrants.

As Prime Minister Howard said recently, those who want to live under Sharia have quite a number of countries in which to live. There is no reason for Australia (or Canada or America or Britain or France, for that matter) to accommodate them. Other than their own confusion, self—loathing, and moral weakness of their elites, riven with self—soubt and cravenly seeking approval from the cosmopolitan smart set.

My admiration for Prime Minister Howard continues to grow. My love for Australia and Australians, always deep, has turned into utter infatuation. If I couldn't live in my beloved America, I would be off to Australia in a heartbeat.

Where, oh where, are the poltiical leaders of America? Don't they understand that anyone with the guts to follow the lead of PM Howard would become an instant hero?

Evidently, they are too cowed by fear of being called racist to embrace the common sense doctrine that those who seek to enter our culture deserve to have it remain intact for them and their children.

Hat tip: Joseph Crowley

Thomas Lifson is the editor and publisher of American Thinker.

Australia is once again making more sense than any other country on earth with regard to issues of culture and immigration. Like its Anglosphere cousins the United States and Canada, Australia's political economy, personal freedom, rule of law, and other characteristics inherited from the British, make it an extremely attractive place for immigrants. A continental land mass able to accommodate a greater population completes the package luring many, including many Muslims, to dream of a better life there than in their own home countries.

But unlike Canada, which has embraced a self—effacing attitude toward its own cultures, and the United States, which also pays obeisance to the pernicious self—abnegating doctrines of multiculturalism, Australia is unafraid to stand up and say that those wanting to come to Australia must adapt to the existing realities, not expect to change Australia into their home country, only with better weather and welfare benefits.

The BBC reports:

Australia is planning a radical strengthening of immigration laws that would require prospective citizens to take tough English language tests as well as a quiz on history and culture.

Critics have said the plans are patronising and insulting.

Actually, the critics have it backwards. It is quite insulting and patronizing to immigrate to a country and expect it to adapt to the very things one left behind. This is the behavior of a conqueror, not an immigrant.

By definition, an immigrant asks for the privilege of being allowed to live in a country not his or her own. Immigrants have no right to demand change. No more than I have a right to barge into your house and demand you rearrange the furniture, knock out the wall between the kitchen and family room, and paint the parlor walls a different color.

An immigrant stipulates that the country to which he or she goes has a superior system. Without such an attraction, why else leave behind family, friends, and the attachments of sentiment?

Lacking any thoughtful points, the opponents of testing in Australia resort to the cry of racism. Pardon me, but if race were the issue, certain races would not be allowed in. That, in fact, was characteristic of Australian immigration policies in an earlier era. But that is no longer the issue.

The BBC also reports that employers supposedly are worried that the new barriers will keep necessary workers from coming to Australia. That, too, is utter nonsense. Workers unwilling to adapt to local language and culture are not likely to be very good employees, willing to learn new skills, able to deal with fellow workers or customers.

The honest truth is that the Anglosphere has a superior political economy, and that is why the world wants to emigrate to our lands. Leftist multiculturalists, angry at their homelands and haunted by their own demons, have a need to believe that there is something wrong at home. Thus the insane mental construct that any change will be an improvement, even changes proposed by Sharia—embracing migrants.

As Prime Minister Howard said recently, those who want to live under Sharia have quite a number of countries in which to live. There is no reason for Australia (or Canada or America or Britain or France, for that matter) to accommodate them. Other than their own confusion, self—loathing, and moral weakness of their elites, riven with self—soubt and cravenly seeking approval from the cosmopolitan smart set.

My admiration for Prime Minister Howard continues to grow. My love for Australia and Australians, always deep, has turned into utter infatuation. If I couldn't live in my beloved America, I would be off to Australia in a heartbeat.

Where, oh where, are the poltiical leaders of America? Don't they understand that anyone with the guts to follow the lead of PM Howard would become an instant hero?

Evidently, they are too cowed by fear of being called racist to embrace the common sense doctrine that those who seek to enter our culture deserve to have it remain intact for them and their children.

Hat tip: Joseph Crowley

Thomas Lifson is the editor and publisher of American Thinker.