Jo

you say:

"Environment author Mark O'Connor argues infrastructure costs are between $200,000 and $400,000 for every person that comes to Australia to work."

I have no doubt that the numbers are of the right order, but I suggest that theses are for every person, whether a worker or not, who emigrates here.

Thus a "worker" and family of 4 in total, will cost the Nation between $800,00 and $1.6 Million in extra infrastructure. If you add in a very probable family reunion, say 4 extra, then the costs are doubled to between $1.6million and $3.2 million.

Any consequent welfare or assimilation costs will be additional to these costs, and could easily be measured in $100,000's per annum per family.

So clearly immigration is a very expensive process, and one which the Government refuses to openly and clearly itemise or address; and one which Business users will never be asked to pay for.

Let us not overlook either, the cost to the Nation of boat persons claiming to be a refugee.

Processing costs for each is in excess of $200,000, or say $400,000 per genuine refugee ( on a 50% legitimacy basis). A cost which is additional to infrastructure costs, above.

All of which makes it especially important to closely monitor all of our immigration intake.

I am sure that if the population at large fully understood the cost implications, then we would have a very seriously different policy.

I wonder if a white baby which comes from say Sweden costs the same to import as a black baby from the Sudan?

An under nourished black baby might have more medical problems later on in life, whereas a nice fat, fleshy Swedish baby will be happy and giggly and probably vegetarian, with a passion for post materialist values.

You see, you really have to have some sort of moral tape measure to size up how much a life is worth. That's what we're talking about here. It's a group of eco-warriors who are laying down the law by laying tape measures over the land, over the law and over immigration policy.

A meat eating baby is clearly going to be more expensive and damaging to the bio-sphere. If they're black and Muslim - forget it.

White babies seem to be, well, less intrusive, less obvious, less confronting. May be they're smarter too, larger craniums, etc.

You've got to be really confident that you know what you're talking about when you go down the instrumentalist path. The tables can be turned so quickly.

Cheryl asks "I wonder if a white baby which comes from say Sweden costs the same to import as a black baby from the Sudan?"

Yes of course it would, Cheryl. (Even when people come from rich countries, they don't bring their infrastructure with them. They need to find it here.)

And yes, a baby born here demands as much as a baby brought here --though a baby may not initially demand as much infrastructure as an adult.

As to the racial red herring -- I find it sad that this was attempted.

Livio

Wow

An article chock full of facts and figures. Trouble is, they're misleading or wrong.

The Department’s budget increase is “primarily due to increased base funding for the additional care and processing of IMAs” [Irregular Maritime Arrivals]. Not skilled migrants.

The article says “Increasing the permanent migration intake from 168,700 to 185,000 places will cost an additional $160 million over four years.” The budget papers say “The net impact on the fiscal balance is expected to be an increase of $160.9 million over four years.” – that is, the budget bottom line will be $160m BETTER OFF because increases in revenues exceed increases in expenses.

The article says the government will spend $4.8 billion to market migration. That should read $4.8 million.

Maybe someone else can be bothered to fact check the rest. Better still, maybe someone should have done it before the article was posted.

Cheryl

You ask some relevant questions.

I think it is relevant and helpful to ask what the costs are to the Australian community, for Swedes and Sudanese migrants. Why not? I do not understand why you object to this?

Knowing the cost may not be the only factor, but it may help us to make better decisions

It is only by knowing these that we can make decisions about alternative uses of our National resources; alternatives such as training an Australian to do the proposed work of the immigrant; or (if you have refugees in mind) providing Aid to Sudan, say for fertility clinics to ameliorate population based pressures there, so as to reduce conflict.

Perhaps you can tell us whether you would ever put a limit on immigration costs.

Say, for example, 20,000 refugees were going to cost the Nation $2 billion, (which is quite possible) would you think it reasonable to ask whether these funds could be better spent assisting, training or protecting far greater numbers of other, equally distressed, peoples overseas?

Similar arguments could apply to 457 visa holders.

Knowing costs enables a more sensible use of national resources.

In my view, it is also something that we, the electorate are entitled to know, especially if we going to understand, or support, the Policy. Do you have a problem with this?

Methinks. If , instead of teaching Australian politics, she learned to do the job that a potential immigrant is meant to do, than the lady could be said to be a positive, patriotic and lovely girl.

Politics, Australian politics! What an entertainment for idiots