Any immigration of people, other than those NEEDED by Australia for economic reasons, is ridiculous in present day Australia. We don't have the costly infrastructure needed - and our idiot politicians are not interested in providing it - and habitable land is limited to about two thirds of the coastline, which is already crowded.

And, enough about the 'value' of so called refugees (illegals).The author appears to be just another elitist who doesn't see the majority of "refugees" , say, in Western Sydney, who get on the dole and stay on it for the rest of their lives.

Fortress Australia is what is need into the foreseeable future.

I would suggest that Australia, one of the most generous of western nations in this respect, to accept refugees commensurate (per head of population and GDP) with those of Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and other gulf nations. I think that this would be fair and equitable don't you?

@tbn - you have missed the central point of te article - namely that given we bring in 200,000 extra people a year we have a choice regarding who comes in. It is hypocrisy to claim we are doing all we can for clearly we could choose to bring in 200,000 refugees.
This is not inconsistent with fortress Australia; we can still set the numbers and conditions under which refugees are accepted. For example we could come to an arrangement with our pacific neighbours that we will process potential refugees offshore -boat people will be sent to such detention facilities to await their turn.
As far as the question of population growth is concerned I agree that we should not take any migrants under any scheme but given that is unlikely to happen we should structure our policy to take as many refugees as we can.
Your assumption that the dole bludgers are refugees is simply not supported by the facts - if anything they are less likely to be refugees. The government rarely published data with respect to the success of its migration policy - such research as has been carried out suggests that upward of a third of all migrants either return or fail to gain stable employment. For unlike refugees those who come out on the strength of their professional qualifications tend to be reluctant to explore lower paid jobs. Whereas refugees will take anything that is going; nopt least because many of them send money back home to support their extended family.

Baygon,

I have not missed anything. You just disagree with me. I believe in a fortress Australia, apart from trade, in this bad economic and dangerous time.

The "refugee" lurk is kept going, particularly now, by the blackmailing of politicians of weak character more interested in their standing with the useless, corrupt United Nations than they are with Australia. The UN encourages mass movement of people with the idea that it will relieve poverty, when all it will do is lower the standards of the countries and continents these people are invading.

You apparently think this is OK. I do no not. In fact, I believe the whole nonsense should stop altogether. I accept that my opinions are not universal, but I am not going to change my beliefs to fall in with anyone else's ideas of right or wrong, good or bad, nice or nasty.

TBBN put your brain into gear.

The point your making is that the refugee problem is a manifestation of the economic collapse that has been heralded since 1972 (The Limits of Growth) I AGREE

You effectively argue that the proposed solutions are merely papering over the cracks of a system that is no longer working. I AGREE

The only point of disagreement and I struggle to think why you would disagree concerns our migration quota. My personal view is that the number of migrants coming into this country should be zero. BUT if we are going to admit migrants then we have to ask the question who should we admit. When Tony Abbott on the one hand says we cannot take more refugees and on the other that we can accommodate 200,000 migrants then clearly he is making a particular choice. If he wants to come out and say as you do we have the capacity to take up to 200,000 refugees but I refuse to do so and am sticking with our current policy then at least that would be an honest response. But he cannot argue that we cannot accommodate more refugees for based on his logic clearly we can.

Baygon,

I read you advice to "get your brain into gear" and decided not to read any more. If you want to be competitive, go for Mortein.