Interesting and thought provoking article.
That said, we need to do many things very differently, to encourage maximized migration assisted economic growth.
We simply cannot and should not follow migration with largely overdue reconstruction/infrastructure development/roll out!
And we need to close the tax loopholes that almost alone, create these cart before the horse conditions!
We who make all our own tax laws, hold it in our hands to remediate these anomalies!
Only one thing prevents massively overdue tax reform and simplification, and that is political intransigence, no doubt fueled by a stiff measure of self serving vested/special interest!
And if you find that incomprehensible, just pause and look for just a moment, at the passing parade of past and present pollies, transversing through ICAC!
Real tax reform should result in a completely unavoidable, stand alone, expenditure tax.
Which can and should be progressively reduced, as former professional avoiders, are finally included in the fold.
After tax reform, we need to set about building an alternative energy system, that then provides the world's cheapest energy, and very doable, if we but embrace cheaper than coal thorium power; with each modest reactor, connected to its own micro grid/industrial estate!
The world's cheapest tax coupled to the world's lowest energy costs, will have migrants queuing to relocate to these shores, bringing high tech skills and manufacture with them, along with high tech manufacture/entrepreneurs and millions of cashed up self funded retirees, seeking to escape European tax collectors/wealth tax/death duties etc!
High tech, as many will agree, is the only future we have!
And we shouldn't be adverse to relocating whole nations, with lots of technical savvy/high tech niche manufacture/military inventories; given that could well serve our most vital interests!
Rhrosty.

"For receiving countries, an ever-aging population and the need to fill gaps in their labour market make the attraction of migrants an imperative for economic survival."

Fail.

For migration to impact aging, immigrants would have to be *considerably* younger than the existing population.
That is not the case.

Gaps in labour cannot be filled internally?
If a developing country, with 10% of our GDP has the resources to train people, how can we not have them?

Both those claims are utterly bogus.

So if that's all there is, then there's NO justification (from our end) for immigration, particularly demographically-incongruent immigration.

"a 3 percent increase in the labor force of developed countries through migration would result in a net annual gain of $56 billion"

In the *entire* developed world?
That's pennies!

"For developing countries migration has unprecedented benefits"

I don't care.

"Nowhere in the OECD does immigration have a strongly negative impact on the average wage of citizens."

And nowhere does it have a *strong* benefit.
3-4%. Pfft!

"strike the right balance between unlocking the opportunity of immigration and preventing the exploitation of migrants."

And what of the local population? Irrelevant!

"open up discussion"

i.e. more, more, more.

"We are a country born of generations of migration"

During the initial settlement, yes.
By the 1940s though, 90% were native born.

A new people had been created, but are now being destroyed.
But it ain't genocide if you're White.

"we should be capable of leading the charge"

In the opposite direction.
Less, less, less.

We don't need to make our country unrecognisable and risk utter social breakdown for a few extra pennies.

There is a major ethical issue regards the commoditisation of people, and using people as a unit of work for industry.

Or, to put it more simply, bringing people into the country to be work-fodder for industry.

But the concept that immigrants have to be brought in to reduce the average age of the country and reduce the aging population is probably the most dumb idea I have ever come across.

There reaches a point where the country cannot take any more immigrants, and then the population ages, and then the problem is much, much worse, because there are now many more people in the country than the country can ever support.

But those who favour immigration and overpopulation, (and the consumption of our natural resources, and the destruction of our wildlife and scenic areas, and the loss of culture and national identity, and the congestion and overcrowding, and the increasing infrastructure costs), cannot seem to see this simple piece of logic.

High on the agenda of the G20 is "Bail in".ie a Cyprus style confiscation of your bank accounts when they get into trouble. As a depositor we are defined as an unsecured creditor of the banks.

Our banks have derivative exposure 8 times their assets which are our over valued mortgages.

The Solution ? http://www.cecaust.com.au/ Sign the petition to bring in the Glass Steagall Act.Bill Clinton abolished this act in the USA in 1999.

I think this girl actually expects some fools will believe her statistics. Come on Carla, just because some academic with an agenda says so, doesn't make it true.

If you do, just think about all that money being sent home to mum, particularly if the immigrants are Muslim, & it is all welfare money being exported.

The article is pure propaganda.

Immigration is divisive and leads to a lack of social cohesion and a decrease in trust. Multicultural communities tend to be more atomised as people hunker down in communities of like-minded individuals.

Look at the different reaction of the Japanese and Americans after the tsuname and Hurricane Katrina. One society had the 'benefits' of migration the other didn't. I know which one I'd rather belong to.

It's such a shame we have become determined to pull our society apart. Look at Detroit in the US. The flood of low paid immigrants has destroyed the US economy. Rich people get cheap maids and corporations book massive profits. For what?