The Productivity Commission report quoted by Divergence actually indicates that immigration is good for the economy. It only says that "The incomes of existing resident workers grow more slowly than would otherwise be the case". But they GROW nonetheless.

Of course, no study or report will be the final answer. It's worth noting, however, that in 1990 the American Immigration Institute surveyed prominent economists on the matter and four out of five said immigrants have a favourable impact on economic growth.

This finding is cited in the link I posted earlier but to which no-one responded. It draws on several studies in the US, including one by the US Department of Labor as well as studies by the Rand Corporation, the University of Maryland, the Council of Economic Advisors, the National Research Council and the Urban Institute. The article can be accessed here: http://www.aclu.org/immigrants-rights/immigrants-and-economy

The article concludes: "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".

The 2006 Productivity Commission report was only concerned with the narrowly economic effects of mass migration. It didn't even consider effects on quality of life due to crowding, congestion, noise, permanent water restrictions, loss of open space, skyrocketing housing costs and utility bills, etc., etc. The Australian Unity Wellbeing Index has repeatedly flagged high density as reducing well being, with people being happier in lower density electorates, even if they have less money.

http://australianunity.republicast.com/wbr2008/republicast.asp?page=37&layout=1&control=yes&zoom=100

Nor does the Productivity Commission report consider the environment, where population acts as a multiplier for the vast majority of negative impacts. The Governments's own Measuring Australia's Progress reports have shown every environmental indicator getting worse apart from urban air quality, which has fairly easy technological solutions.

Most of us would accept that there is a need for some immigration, that it can have some real cultural and educational benefits. We are arguing about the numbers. Even larger-scale immigration may have had some benefits in the past, but so what? It is good that your bones were growing when you were 8 years old, but you have a very serious problem if they are still growing that way when you are 35.

Divergence, the reality of high density living is hardly an argument against immigration. It's an argument against current and past planning practices. We need new cities. As for water scarcity, it's a question of management and technology - the north is drenching while the south-east is still in drought. And, besides, humans do know how to desalinate. Israel and Libya have both irrigated their deserts, transforming them into farm land.

Bjork,

It is undisputed that mass migration grows the economy, at least until you get to the point of collapse, but what most of us are interested in is per capita benefit. The US effectively had open borders in the early 20th century, although it was difficult and expensive to reach it. As a result of a number of influences, including some bloody rioting when mass migration was resumed after WWI, Congress cut immigration back to near zero net in 1921. It stayed that way until 1965, when Congress opened the floodgates again. In the 1950s and 60s, there was enormous economic growth, and it was shared proportionately among the social classes. Since the 1970s, real incomes have been stagnant for the bulk of the population, while they have been skyrocketing for the top 1%. Virtually all of the benefits of economic growth have gone to the folk at the top. See

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

How is this possible with the wonderful benefits of mass migration?

This graph from Club Troppo shows the share of national income going to the top 1% of the population in Australia, the US, Canada and Sweden since 1900

http://clubtroppo.com.au/2006/08/24/policy-and-perhaps-culture-matter-for-income-distribution/

The folk at the top have a strong interest in promoting mass migration because they are the ones who benefit from bigger markets, high real estate prices, and increased competition in the labour market, along with skilled workers who have already been trained at someone else's expense. The ACTU can be considered as representing the humanitarian Left, mostly upper middle class people who aren't personally harmed by mass migration or population growth and see no negatives, unless they are nature lovers or care about their fellow citizens. They may also benefit from "affordable" nannies, gardeners, and restaurant meals. Various mass migration studies are discussed at the Center for Immigration Studies website

http://www.cis.org/

Divergence, the economic crisis in America since the late 1970s is a crisis of capitalist overproduction, a cyclical product of the social relations of production based on private accumulation of capital. In no way are immigrants to blame for this situation.

It makes as much sense as to say that immigrants are to blame for Melbourne's drought or for over-crowded trains and trams - the answer to the latter is to build and supply more trains and trams - yet this is what is really being suggested.

House prices aren't exorbitant because of immigrants but rather because of the anarchic nature of capitalist production. Human beings know how to build inexpensive, sturdy and comfortable houses. There's no reason why supply should not exceed demand - except for the social system based on unplanned production for private profit.

I find it strange that no-one has, as yet, commented directly on the article I linked to previously, which cites several studies.

By the way, given that you have said that the discussion is about numbers rather than about immigration per se, can you indicate what you regard as an appropriate net intake for Australia? Neither Julia Gillard nor Bob Brown seem able to answer this question - and I'm not sure whether Abbott has attempted an answer yet.

PS - Can you link us to an article at the CIS site that supports your case

Since when was economics the sole, or most suitable advisor, of what is best for public policy? Economics advising public policy, they really have to be kidding, right? Didn't that very limited and misled way of thinking go out with yesterday's men (of Banana Republic ill fame) who were prone to bounce between very narrow rails?

The very first concern should be that a now deposed (rightly too!) Prime Minister went ahead on his own say-so to double what was an already record immigration flow, much to the consternation of the usually long-suffering electorate. Rudd's brainstorm, a deluge of immigrants to impress the UN, should be reversed immediately.

Mr Rudd was given a nasty kick in the pants by the electorate in the form of lousy approval numbers. Had Rudd led his government to the election, they would have been roundly trounced and slung out on their ears. A good thing too for a PM who was dismissive of the electorate and was so arrogant as to boast of his 'Big Australia', the one he didn't get a mandate for.

It is ridiculous that anyone could think that more 'economic' fudging could continue to pull the wool over voters' eyes when they can see for themselves the damage wrought by those who claim to know what is best for the community and (who) think they are superior to the people they are supposed to be serving.

Keith (post on page 4) is right in his criticisms and there is every chance that Julia Gillard is just playing for time with spin, hoping to hold off debate until she can shrug the usual 'never you mind' after the election is over. However the Greens and the LNP seem no better.

What is required is to trash the spin and for politicians of all persuasions to listen to what voters are saying. Isn't that what democracy is supposed to be about, representing the voters? Or does the electorate need to provide more frequent and sterner lessons for arrogant, self-interested politicians?