AGIR:SIGWB

>> I lost interest when I see a tight 'paragraph' Life is too short.. I need 'headline' then explaination.. thats why I use 'HEADLINE' and then..sentence etc. <<

How do you manage to read the bible?

>> I am not 'shouting'..I am trying.. to make a piece well spaced and enable the reader to see quickly what I'm on about. <<

Yes, you are (shouting). It is common internet etiquette that the use of capitals equates to shouting. You have been informed of this in all your personas on OLO.

>> Thanx for the criticism...though you don't quite understand my method.
Hopefully now you will. <<

I do understand, you think that by screeching in small info-bites your proselytising will work. It doesn't. It merely reveals your lack of respect for others.

Which fits in with your lack of understanding on immigration and population. If you don't respect others who are different from you, you are unlikely to empathise and therefore cannot offer anything of worth to this topic.

suzeonline Would there be upset Australians? Irrespective of what policy a government adopts on any issue - it will upset some folk; to reject a policy because it may upset people puts a government in an impossible situation - for no matter what it does or does not do it will upset some folk.
Our post war migration policy was brought about by fear not by the need for taxes. WWII had taught us that we were very vulnerable - we had virtually no manufacturing base, our supply lines to the UK had been cut and, with a small population we were in no position to resist the Japanese. So Caldwell was instructed to source immigrants in a hurry. The preference was for British stock but there was one problem - immediately after the war there was no shipping available for migrants - there was shipping for refugees so we took in Europeans - to ease Australian concerns Caldwell made sure he was photographed with some very blonde Estonians. The post war migration programme was all about fast tracking a labour force - when supply from Europe began to dry up it (in the seventies) we relaxed provisions by abandoning the white Australia policy. (It was sold as "aren't we good.")
Ironically we are now in a situation where we have adopted a lifestyle that is dependent on imports - our manufacturing industry is virtually dead and food security is a major concern.
As other posters have indicated a stable population and a no growth economy is not the end of the world; there are plenty of nations that have successfully gone down that track.
As a migrant myself I made a point of studying the history of migration - space does not permit to provide details here but our migration policy is a history of ill-conceived and poorly executed policies. (A good introduction is There Goes The Neighbourhood or if you can find it I contributed a chapter on migration to the Social History of South Australia.)

Thanks for that info Baygon, you are right, I wasn't totally aware of all the reasons for the change in immigration policy after the war.
Obviously I had forgotten my history lessons!

So I still think that if we say no to immigration, we will lose some imports from some countries. I don't believe any country can live in isolation these days and everyone will just have to learn to live together.

suze .. "We are one country that didn't come out too badly during the past world financial crisis did we? Do we want to put ourselves in a vulnerable situation for the next crisis?

No, we don't."

I have no idea what you're on about. The fact we came out of the GFC has many elements, I don't believe it has anything to do with immigration but lots to do with mining and that the countries finances were in fantastic shape after being husbanded by conservatives for 11 years - now that the ALP has the levers, it's all coming adrift, but I digress - how does this relate to the immigration question?

Ah .. I see in your later post "So I still think that if we say no to immigration, we will lose some imports from some countries."

So you reject all the arguments that countries do not run on emotion, like the way you would run the country? If you were in charge and say Robin Williams called us rednecks, would you cease relaitons with the USA .. of course you would!

"I don't believe any country can live in isolation these days" Only North Korea lives in a form of isolation and some Islamic regimes of course, but generally everyone trades if they can and they do not start and stop it because of someone's immigration policy which is their Sovereign Right

"and everyone will just have to learn to live together." of course they should, and the Easter Bunny will be along in a minute .. neither is a reality, and that's something you accept in life or flail in frustration at the unfairness of the world .. try religion, it works for some people.

If all that were the case Amicus, why isn't there full scale ceasing of all immigration by the countless numbers of countries in the world who do allow it?
I suppose you know more about immigration and economics than all the experts?

You have your opinions and I have mine, but we both know immigration is allowed by far more countries than not allowed.
They could all be wrong I suppose.

I tried religion Amicus, and it failed me miserably.
Obviously I am not alone, after reading yesterdays papers which told of the vast numbers of people in Australia no longer attending churches, or considering themselves as Christian.