Wow.

Civics, when I went to school, consisted of a reminder that we needed to register for a TFN (and having forms for same handed out), and later a reminder that we needed to register to vote (and, again, having forms for same handed out).

I was in town a few days ago, and apparently the course has advanced: they now hand out dole application forms to all students as they graduate as well.

Careful how you’re using the term segregation here, too. Segregation is not simply the fact that some geographical areas might have a different ethnic balance.

Multiculturalism is more than a pleasant shopping experience. I’m more refereeing to functionally integrating people into a larger society so that future and current generations don’t feel despondent from living in marginalized communities.

Immigration is more than just giving citizenship. It’s about having the resources to support and integrate. Perhaps we should temporarily halt immigration altogether until every aboriginal child has adequate healthcare, education and clean water, and not treated like third class citizens. Until then (perhaps) we have no capacity to support immigrants, and no right.

No, Jason, there aren’t.

Apart from the fact that I think you’re making an unfounded assumption about my race, I’ve lived in the UK for many years. I’ve been to Bradford, Leeds, Liverpool (I lived there), Brixton, Glasgow and Milton Keynes along with dozens of other cities. Some of these places have large populations of particular ethnic groups. In some cases English isn’t the dominant language spoken in the streets (also true for Aberystwyth). I had no trouble in any of those places, and found them interesting and vibrant communities (well, not Milton Keynes). I treated people of all backgrounds in each of these places with courtesy and respect and received nothing but the same in return. The same is true of Lakemba which I visit occasionally to buy middle Eastern cooking ingredients, and Ashfield where I live.

Please don’t assume I share your prejudices.

Your three facts, patrick… Fact 1, that people want to come to Australia, sure. “Millions” even. Calling them “millions and millions” is a nice rhetorical technique to imply a massive horde. Well done. Fact 2 is a tautology: “selecting” and “filtering” are essentially synonyms. Fact 3 is an assertion, not a fact — unless you’re using the word “test” in such a broad sense that it’s just another synonym for “select”. Evidence or logical support please!

My core point was — and still is! — that this test won’t work, that this test is just a pre-election stunt, and that this test presents a view of Australia with which I disagree.

Now overnight I’ve realised two things which seem to be forgotten in this debate — not necessarily you two chaps but in general:

1. There are already filters. Potential citizens have already been permanent residents (PR) for 5 years, giving them plenty of opportunity to absorb Australian values — certainly more than a booklet. To get a PR, you must pass health, character (police) and security checks. You are interviewed “up close and personal,” as patrick puts it. You must already have family here, possess work skills, be a genuine refugee or be a “business migrant” — i.e. have cash in pocket. And you pay for it — over $2000 last I looked. Some rhetoric around this issue tries to gloss over this fact. This is already a tough country to migrate to.
2. Australia’s migration policy is non-racist. That is, you pass the existing tests on your merits. Your race or ethnicity doesn’t come into it. This proposed new test will not change that — but what offends me is the cynical way in which its promotion will appeal to the Alan Jones listeners who would want to see the White Australia Policy return, because they’ll hear the references to “UK” and “Christian”.

Unless someone wants to say they’d like to see race or ethnicity become a criterion? In which case, prepare to see me really arc up!

@patrick: Without Googling, please list the three major themes of the opening ceremony in the 1956 Olympic Games in Melbourne. Betcha can’t.

I’m enjoying this discussion. It really helps sharpen my own thoughts and how to explain them. Thank you for the in-depth comments.

Look at it from a Government’s point of view where decisions need to be made and action needs to be taken.

Fact: there are millions and millions of people wanting to relocate to Australia.

Fact: the easiest, most effective and equitable way of selecting citizens is through a filtering mechanism.

Fact: the optimal filtering mechanism is – oh hang on a second – a test.

We simply don’t have the resources in our Government – nor am I willing to pay for them as a taxpayer – to exercise any alternatives. Interviewing or getting “up close and personal” with every single person wanting to relocate to this country just to see whether we are allowing the “right” people through the doors is expensive and extremely subjective.

I think it’s great to have people understand “the basics” when moving to a new country. Makes perfect sense. You do a bit of research so when (if) you are approved to relocate to this country, you’ll have at least some clue about our roots and what’s been going on etc.

And no, current citizens should not be obliged to sit the test. We do similar tests and learn Australian history at school anyway.

P.S. Um, yes, the opening ceremony for the 2000 games will be relevant in 5 years and for the next 50 years for that matter.

While Mr.Nguyen’s example is a great one, it’s the overall picture that would interest most I hope.

(Not that anyone is suggesting genuine refugees plucked form the water should be saved on condition of passing the test)

There are places in the UK you simply would not visit due to racial segregation. The london bombings were not due to religion, they were born out of young people feeling disassociated due to some impractical Left policies in past generations.

Not that the bombing itself is of interest, just as someone becoming a doctor is not of paticular interest, it’s the social fabric that most people would care about.

Does this test help in that regard? I think a simple test, with perhaps more pertinent questions, that is relatively simple to pass if you bothered to spend a little time learning about your new country is a positive step in the right direction.

I think this proves that if we want immigrants to become good and useful citizens we’d do a lot better by showing them compassion and welcome than by making them do a ridiculous test which Mr Nguyen and his family (who spoke no English) would almost certainly have failed.

In the interests of being clear and specific, I should say the “current proposed test”.

On the third point, the logic is simple: It’s unfair to impose a test on someone else if you’re not willing to apply the same test to yourself.

Also, if someone born here believes they automatically qualify as “understanding and committing to Australian values” because they magically absorbed them over a few years, then by what logic do they think a potential New Australian can’t also absorb those values? After all, you can only apply for citizenship after you’ve already been a permanent resident in Australia for some years.

I’m not necessarily saying I agree with the logic, but that’s the explanation.

I did say that “three threads are emerging” — I never said I agreed with those threads. I’m just exploring the issues.