The Forum > Article Comments > Does the lucky country need migrants? > Comments
Does the lucky country need migrants? : Comments
By Bob Birrell, published 3/8/2010Metropolitan areas are not coping with the recent influx, so why encourage more arrivals?
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Page 4
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
-
- All
No one has never been able to contradict the arguement that we have never been better off. We are living longer, seeing more of this beautiful planet, have more food choices, more toilets, more wealth and yet has population has grown heaps. The only down side has been our incompetent State Governments who have not put infrastructure in place as well as a Federal Government that refuses to decide who makes good citizens and who does not.
Posted by runner, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 2:11:48 PM
| |
In the 1950s I made friends with other students, colleagues, who came from Malaysia, Indonesia, the Philippines – studying under the Colombo Plan. What a grand concept that was , the antithesis of the current money-grubbing, talent-robbing, system where we take both cash and potential from those regions which are in greater need of development than ourselves.
Talk of insularity is a nonsense: There is plenty of room for two-way cross-pollination of skills and experience within the nett ebb-and-flow, in-and-out, of 80,000 people across our national border each year. There is no excuse for an inflow of an extra 277,700 above that - as was the case last year. As Bob Birrell says of rapid rate of employment growth, it is dominated by service industries in cities; and the growth lobby demands more immigration in order to service the increased population - which now is predominantly via immigrants. Dogs chasing their own tails were the most stupid things on view. That is now in second place: the growth lobby is trying to persuade us to do the same; use it as a basis upon which to build our society. There is no final number – 23 million, 50, 100 – they are no more than points along that lobby’s “essential” growth curve. Thank you Bob Birrell for putting together cogent words on the population issue, and the major drivers of the social and environmental deterioration. Should this deterioration ever be adequately addressed, then there might be some reason to promote an increase in numbers, whatever their origin. As it is we are on the downhill skids which are being well oiled by those who want more of the same. Posted by colinsett, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 2:19:09 PM
| |
The Comments on this article are some of the worst i have ever had the misfortune to witness.
1, Many of the people who are anti immigration, are not necessarily against a "Big Australia", they would just like to achieve it with more "White" Aussie babies raised in traditional, intact families, like we were doing between 1945 & 1965. 2, Here's another conundrum for you all to contemplate. How did our governments manage to build infrastructure & educate all those children? Bear in mind that there were huge projects, requiring both funding & co-operation between all 3 levels of government, "Snowy Mountains" "Ord River" etc, on top of all the schools, hospitals, libraries, roads, bridges, universities, etc, etc, etc. Bear in mind also, that during those years our health care & education systems were right up there with, "Worlds Best Practice". How did they do it? Why can't they do it now? Posted by Formersnag, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 2:38:59 PM
| |
Cheryl,
Where's the evidence that much of the opposition to high immigration rates is motivated by racist sentiment? What do you say to those Australians who oppose mass immigration by all ethnic groups? Your comments are offensive and glib.We live in an old tired desert,the addition of a few million to our population will provide us with little economic benefit and the costs will be considerable. David Jennings, I'd be fascinated to see your strategy to convert Australians from McMansions to high density living.Dream on. There are plenty of economic arguments against high population growth rates. You both seem to write as if Birrell were some sort of lone voice. Try this reference- http://www.population.org.au Posted by mac, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 2:43:08 PM
| |
I think you'll find that Birrell's views aren't exactly welcome in academia and Formersnag's comments shows to whom that view panders.
These aren't views that business welcomes either. Thats one of the real divides here. The anti-populationists are a mix of a different set of motivations some good and some bad. Either way, if you are anti-population then don't have children. Posted by David Jennings, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 3:01:00 PM
| |
Thanks Mac, whenever I want a crank comment or an unsubstantiated opinion supported by a Youtube video, I go directly to to the Unsustainable Unpopulated Australia website.
Posted by Cheryl, Tuesday, 3 August 2010 3:02:16 PM
|