Australia was created by immigrants. As strange as it may seem, the country still needs people to inhabit the territory of Australia. It is easy to construct a discussion on this issue. Many studies observe this from good and bad sides. The paper considers two articles on social affairs of Australia.
Bob Day (2003) in the article Safety in Numbers represents positive sides of immigration to Australia. The author describes four features in which the government could get benefits. These are: economic, environmental, birthrate and security domains. The thing is that the immigration and multiculturalism, as a result, impact positively on the economy, security, and social stability in the country. Different readings showed that this is inevitably vital for Australia. In fact, the author gives a lot of facts about how the country benefited from immigration in the past and what this perspective promises today. The author develops on the national strategy for the protection of Australia’s main rules and principles for living. Multiculturalism cannot be simply reduced. Australia needs such diverse versatility of population.
Another article by Michael James (1998) Cultural Pluralism: The Case for Benign Neglect continues discussion on the issue of multiculturalism in Australia. The author intends a reader to realize the significance of immigration and multinational relations for this country. However, it is possible when one follows the laws and principles of society. There is a great desire of Australians to emphasize the role of commitment of immigrants to the country, first. Only on this basis there can be a guarantee for safe and accustomed development of relationships in the society. Sharing cultures, Australians not just support peaceful way of relations, but prevent each other from competition. This objective relies on flexible governmental conventions that really unite minor and major ethnical groups in Australia.
Looking at the article by Bob Day, I can simply state that immigration is needful for Australia at the time. Furthermore, it is vital for more growth of the national economy and other qualitative features. The results of such policy are really budding. The birthrates can increase. However, for the unique Australian nature such change is dangerous. The author also does not mention concrete numbers as for population and areas being more or less inhabited. If there were more statistical data in charts, graphs or diagrams, then an observer could come closer to the reality of annual migration in Australia. Nonetheless, the author correctly discloses the main points in a few words. Such concise narration leaves several questions unanswered, for example: what is the optimal way out for the environmental situation?
The article by Michael James (1998) intends a reader to get closer to the fact of ethnical versatility in Australia, but it is just a description. In fact, it comprises concrete features of Australians’ self-identity. A special emphasis is made in accordance with the equality in cultures, languages and religions. This is stated in the article a bit generally. The author misses the historical facts about the status of those who created and developed the country on its initial stage. However, an additional support for the argument by James (1998) is in the illustrations related to the discussion. With more evidences about the research problem it could be more informative. The author masterly demonstrates an irony of benign neglect. Hence, the article is respectful for Australian internal relations.
Thus, the role of immigration in Australia is analyzed from two sides: positive and negative. The positive one shows that it is effective for the economic growth, birthrates and settling people throughout the continent. However, such demographic situation can become harmful for a fragile nature of Australia. All in all, multiculturalism is encountered by natives negatively, and this is the base for discussing ethnical biases in the country.
Reference list
Day, B 2003, Safety in Numbers. Web.
James, M 1998, ‘Cultural Pluralism: The Case for Benign Neglect’, Review.