Ozzie - nope, sorry, your attempted refutation does not cut it. In fact immigration's effects on unemployment is by no means s..........
As for overall benefit, my distinct impression is that the UK research concluded that there were overall benefits. So who are the economists you cite? Certainly there has been very little work in Aus, so I don't know what research you could be citing for conditions here.. Australia, after all, has been taking immigrants since the first fleet, and a lot more per cepita of late and the economy seems to be doing very well, thank you very much.
Illegal immigration should be discouraged, and legal immigration could be taken down a notch of two if people are feeling uncomfortable, but attempts at making a case for high immigration having bad economic affects has yet to be made.

How you heard the latest issues relating to the UK and this delmma about this issue. I may say your could be wrong my good ozzie?

Clearly, this issue about what you declare has no bearing no the matter to do with immigrates such as asylum/refuges. This UK declares that is has actually caused a negative reaction. That is to say that those who have follow the Islamic faith and have immigrated to the UK have protested heavily about the UK's participated in the war. Those islamic folk are outraged about this purely because they say that the British gove. is insulting their faith. Oh yes,I will say that immigration is not as straight forward as one may see it to be, but you do need to look at all aspects of this issue. And I may add that it is most important to also take in an collective economist factual view point.

I do feel that it is very fair and reasonable to say 'let's us look into what is happening within our own back yard before we even contemplate other options as to being immigrates in to do the work'.

Curmudgeon,

Have a read of these articles. Then please give me a link to the work you cite that shows there was an overall benefit from immigration.

MEMBER OF LORDS SELECT COMMITTEE ON ECONOMIC AFFAIRS, LORD RICHARD LAYARD: ( Prof of Economics from the London school of economics and one of the most repected economists in the UK)

"The government have been using the overall national income as a measure of the success and and value of its immigration policy. But of course some of that increase in the national income goes to the immigrants, so the question is what is the impact on the existing residents and the answer is the impact is approximately zero."


Also from The Sunday Times ( 1/4/2008)

Immigration is not a benefit to the economy and should be cut, say peersRichard Ford, Home Correspondent

Immigration should be capped, according to a parliamentary report published today which concludes that record numbers of new immigrants have had “little or no impact” on economic well being.

Some groups, including the low-paid, young people seeking jobs and some ethnic minorities, may have suffered because of competition for work from immigrants willing to accept low wages and poor working conditions.

Today’s report, from the Lords Economic Affairs Committee, whose members include two former Conservative Chancellors of the Exchequer, seeks to undermine the Government’s claim that record levels of immigration have boosted the economy.

It also sets out to demolish a range of arguments in favour of immigration, including the one that foreigners are needed to prevent labour shortages and also to help to support an increasingly ageing population.

also from the same article
Lord Wakeham, the former Conservative Cabinet minister who chaired the Lords inquiry, said: “The argument put forward by the Government that large-scale net immigration brings significant economic benefits for the UK is unconvincing. We have found no evidence to support their position.”

Sonya2,

Are you criticizing my opinion or that of Curmudgeon?

You quote Curmudgeon but then critisize me?

Thanks, ozzie

Firstly, Leigh: "irrespective of all the name-calling from the looney-Left". There's a common saying about a pot and a kettle I think... You instantly lose credibility with statements like that mate.

re: the actual topic

I find it difficult to digest this argument for offshore detention centres as a deterrent for boat people. Despite them being processed off-shore, 90%+ are still given genuine refugee status and this is the statistic prospective boat people are going to be given. After all, I'm sure they all believe they are genuine refugees, whether the actually fit the criteria or not.

Further, these people are desperate which is why they take the path they do. Regardless of what refugee-haters may think. As such, like desperate drug addicts, threatening them with incarceration is obviously not going to be enough to deter them taking the risk to get what they believe they need.

So, like the drug problem, we need to deter those people doing the actual trafficking. They are the real criminals, taking advantage of the desperate to make a quick buck. They are the ones facilitating the people/drug smuggling. Increasing the penalties is the obvious policy choice.

Why is this not being done? Politics over Policy. The big casualty of democracy. It's the government and opposition using Marketing 101 to win what is basically a popularity contest. And the people fleeing persecution or war are just pawns in the game.

Should it really be such a massive issue; how many people a year? 5000? Do you people seriously believe 5000 people are going to change the culture of 22million? It's ludicrous. And the same people banging on about the cost to the economy are the same people wanting the offshore processing and mandatory detention. Compare the costs of putting one person in detention for a year compared to a year of welfare. The whole argument is completely inane.

And I bet at least 85% of people who disagree with me won't have read this far.

Trash

OZZIE,
You are correct with what you use as your references. May I also point out to you that being a politician is a career. And it is a fact they politician may use an economist view point, mainly to thicken up their argument to prove their point and gain a win in the lower house. This is only so it adds flavor to their argument... Roughly put, it is a matter of 'give me the money honey'....

One can not refuse to admit the truth the the career in politics is what will be the common denominated that will sway the polly into turning a core issue into a real dilemma. This is common practice between all of them.. After all, what would you do to save your career/job? Would you be prepared to loose your job just for the case of a personal view point? I'm sure I wouldn't. What do you say?

Here's a study from the site of the American Civil Liberties Union. The study was conducted by reputable sources. It argues that immigraiton is good for the economy. http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/immigrants-and-economy Needless to say, there will be studies that seek to prove the opposite. Cyberspace is a big place. All one need do is google some key words. To a large extent, one's attitude to immigration will depend on one's political-philosophical values.

Excerpt: "Contrary to popular belief, immigrants do not take away jobs from American workers. Instead, they create new jobs by forming new businesses, spending their incomes on American goods and services, paying taxes and raising the productivity of U.S. businesses. Immigrants are good for the economy, not the other way around".