Divergence

I accept that some opponents of migration are not motivated by racism, but it is clearly the case that some are – as the author and some of his supporters in these forums attest.

Furthermore, some groups and individuals motivated at least part by racism use environmental concerns as a cloak of respectability to disguise their true intent in opposing immigration – as I believe was the case when Pauline Hanson purported to oppose immigration on environmental grounds:

http://australianpolitics.com/parties/onenation/immigration-policy-98.shtml

And while your own perspectives may differ from John’s, anti-population rhetoric of the political left has some similar themes – paranoia about elites and their secret agendas, a deeply pessimistic view of current society and a strong sense that things are getting worse – the environment is in crisis, the rich get richer and the poor poorer, banks and multinationals are out of control, we are slaves to “neo-liberalism”/”economic rationalism” etc.

The left and right wings of the anti-population movement may have more in common than either is willing to admit.

Cheryl,

In your previous post, you implied that SPA was racist, not just that it had made arguments that could be picked up by racists. For that matter, there is no better way to create racism than for the population boosters to bring in large numbers of people from different ethnic groups and pit them against each other in competition for inadequate supplies of jobs, housing, public services, and amenities.

Jon F,

Where is your evidence that the governments of China or India care in the slightest about our immigration policy, so long as we don't specifically discriminate against their citizens? They have restrictions on the foreigners who can enter their countries.

Australia looks big and empty on the map, but most of it is desert, with only about 6% of it arable, and a lot of that land pretty marginal. See these maps of rainfall and soil quality from Dr. Chris Watson of the CSIRO:

http://www.australianpoet.com/boundless.htmlinal

The leaders of China and India are not so stupid that they don't know that we have no capacity to solve their overpopulation problems, and they have a strong interest in us continuing to export minerals and agricultural products to them, instead of consuming everything ourselves. Take a look at a satellite picture of the earth at night. You can see where the people are from the lights. If China can't populate its own deserts, what the hell would it want with ours?

If we really were being pressed to take large numbers of invaders in the guise of immigrants, then that is an argument for nuclear weapons, not an expanded immigration program.

Well said Rhian. The extremes of Left and Right are more similar than different. The use of "smear" tactics is common to both, its sort of "if you're not with us you are against us" taken to extremes.
Many in the country are not racist but do have issues with culture. It is important in the country to trust and understand your neighbours, much more so than city folk can understand. A ghetto in the city can be ignored, in a small country town it can destroy the local community and create ever-rising tensions. It is very important not to brand cultural issues and the wish for a peaceful society with intolerance and racism.
Having said that, I know that both sides use smear tactics. Racists use ecological and cultural arguments, and business interests will use just about any tactic to get what they want such as dodgy "institutes" and relentless media campaigns.
There is also idealism vs pragmatism. Can we really stay as small as we'd like and "look after ourselves" when 90% of the world starts getting hungry or has to mover due to global changes? Can an insular culture survive?

Hadn't realized you had been quite so busy, Boaz.

>>Let me pose a question to you.. "Is immigration closely conneded to political outcomes and social engineering?" Let the UK labour party answer that...<<

Apart from the obvious impoliteness of asking a question, then providing your own response, I'm pretty sure "the UK Labour party" didn't give the answer you offered.

It was provided by a blog entitled "Free Britannia". No prizes for guessing their approach to immigration, eh?

But I did appreciate the footnote, bearing in mind that it was written less than a year ago:

"In 2001 I wrote on this very board that if NuLab and the Tories did not do something about mass immigration from aggressive and hostile Third World cultures that the population would turn to the BNP. Am I prescient? NO! But I do know human nature, which is something that the socialists on both sides of the aisle deny even exists!"

Given their performance in the 2010 election, he should have left it at "Am I prescient? NO!"

You forgot, I suppose, in your excitement, that the UK is part of the EC, where there's high mobility across borders, especially for work. So for a while, there have been a lot of Polish people in the hospitality business (and extremely good they were too), who are now unfortunately drifting back home. Soon, there'll be a dearth of plumbers too.

But "social engineering"?

You'd need more supporting evidence than comments on a right-wing blog to get that one to fly.

Dear Pericles.. in your zeal to flush out a 'something'...you neglected just one important fact.. actually it's the most important fact.

The location of that quote is irrelevant.. because it was itself quoting a major media outlet...which in turn was quoting the source himself.

You seem to have deliberately ignored the qualification as follows:

"Let's unpack this obviously right wing tabloidish web site content a bit and distil it to just one quotation of interest...from a Labour source."

And you have the (insert name of irrational behavior here) to suggest that it came from a source where there is no prize for guessing where they stand on immigration ? as if the issue was not raised in the original post ?

You can't be serious? Please.. you give meaning to the word 'duffer' when you do that.

So..perhaps the question should be repeated.

Is this a lie, misquote, or true?

You would maintain your splendid reputation for 'accuracy' by actually demonstrating some of it in consistency. Rather than throwing that baby out with the bathwater of some phobia you have.

Is it a lie? a misquote? or true?

That dear Pericles is what a serious person would ask re that post.
Oh..and as to the reference to who I might be?

"ego eime" copy and paste and mr Google will translate for you.

Rhian,

On p. 151 of the 2006 Australian Productivity Commission report, you can see the results of a simulation of a doubling of skilled migration. The results were that owners of capital (and the migrants themselves) were the big beneficiaries. The lobbying efforts by big business for more population growth and high immigration are documented with extensive references in Mark O'Connor's book "Overloading Australia". This is a fact, not a conspiracy theory. The US has had similar growthist policies to Australia and instituted mass migration in 1965 after 44 years of near zero net. This graph shows real incomes for the different social classes over the years. The bottom 60% have had essentially stagnant real incomes since the 1970s, while the rich have received enormous percentage gains.

http://lanekenworthy.net/2008/03/09/the-best-inequality-graph/

Before the Haber-Bosch process, which is responsible now for half the nitrogen in our bodies, and the Green Revolution, people were really only up against the low productivity of agriculture. Now we are up against global shortages or losses of arable land, fresh water, biodiversity, fish stocks, fossil fuels and minerals that are vital for our agriculture and technology, and capacity of the environment to safely absorb wastes. See the "nine thresholds" paper from Nature, probably the foremost peer-reviewed science journal in the world. The link below is to a related open paper with the same lead author.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/461472a.html
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss2/art32/

If you want to claim that the environment is in great shape and that we don't need to "prepare for ill, and not for good", you are arguing with the mainstream scientific community, not just a few ignorant fringe Greenies.