Who said anything about punishing them Marilyn.

All I want to do is sort out those who are pulling a con trick, from those who just want our welfare, from those who just might make good citizens, if we let them in. I see nothing wrong in expecting them to work for their keep. Please explain why you do.

I refuse any responsibility for those who merely wish to con us. It is up to them to make sure we can confirm who they are, & whether they are in any actual danger at home.

If they can return home, [which often turns out to be other than claimed] to buy a wife, they obviously were lying to us in the first place.

Just because we have a lying immigrant in Canberra is no reason to fill the whole country with them.

Ralph
I haven’t “bagged” Bindi Irwin (I’ve even spelled her name right). Some of the “authorities” you quote actually qualify as authorities, but I challenge you to point to any one of them that links our asylum seeker numbers to environmental pressures.

You still haven’t demonstrated any link between the two, because there isn’t one.

You say I am “a dedicated propagandist promoting habitat and species destruction”. Perhaps you can point to some evidence of this?

Marilyn

'Runner it is the wars that have caused millions of deaths, those who drowned did so only because Australia let them and then used that as an excuse to torture others. '

I appreiciate that Marilyn which means millions are waiting in camps to come to places like Australia. How many do you think we should take? 5 million, 10 million? And of course why should those who pay people smugglers and throw away documents get in before the many who have been tortured and yet remain in camps.

Rhian,

You point out that Australia still ranks very high on the UN Human Development Index, so human well being can't be suffering that much - as yet, although we are becoming more unequal and many people are suffering severely from skyrocketing housing costs. Nevertheless, we are giving our environment a terrible hammering, and this is eventually likely to affect humans as well.

The Australian Conservation Foundation has nominated human population growth in Australia as a key threatening process under the Environmental Protection Act. Their submission is here, and backed up by a great many references to the scientific literature.

http://www.acfonline.org.au/sites/default/files/resources/EPBC_nomination_22-3-10.pdf

Note what they say about the secondary effects, the damage that is done to produce the exports to pay for the imports needed for the bigger population.

We rank at the bottom of the developed world in international comparisons of environmental management. The Conference Board of Canada puts us at the bottom of the 17 developed countries they compare, below the United States.

http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/details/environment.aspx#context

The Environmental Performance Index ranks us at number 48, in the group of modest performers, containing such countries as Bulgaria and Egypt. We are just behind Georgia, the former Soviet republic, and just ahead of the US.

http://epi.yale.edu/epi2012/rankings

What do you have against letting other species live too or not trashing the world our children and grandchildren will inherit? If you are one of those Christians who believe that only people matter and that wrecking the environment will make Jesus come sooner, then go and read Psalm 104.

Asylum seeker numbers are still relatively small, but the experience from Europe with letting them self-select is that the numbers snowball, with a great many unfounded claims from people who just want "a better life". It is extemely difficult or impossible to remove failed asylum seekers. See these Home Office statistics from the UK

http://www.migrationwatchuk.org/briefingPaper/document/108

Note that those half million claims between 1997 and 2004 did not include the dependants who would arrive later.

So far as the 457 visas are concerned and legal immigration in general, some immigration is fine, with a number of cultural and educational advantages, but the numbers are completely over the top. The following link leads to a graph showing our total real GDP and real GDP per capita since 1996. Note that they stopped going up together after 1998. Real GDP per capita has been stagnant since 2006, while total GDP has surged ahead, i.e., the economic growth is just from having more people, while the average person is no better off, despite the mining boom and the high Australian dollar.

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2012/05/highrise-harry-wants-more-people/

Divergence,

If you unpick those studies, the areas where Australia scores worst are air quality and greenhouses gases. I’d accept we can do better on GHG emissions, but I think the air quality metrics are wrong. SO2 and NOX emissions are generally measured as concentrations in urban areas, because of their effects on human health. Using a per capita or GDP linked emissions measure is pretty meaningless. Air quality in Australian cities typically compares well with other developed economies, let alone developing ones.

There is no direct correlation between these measures of environmental quality and extinctions or loss of biodiversity.

I don’t think trashing the environment is acceptable, still less that accelerating Armageddon is a good thing. But I do not accept that there is any correlation at all between the environmental concerns your raise – some of which I share – and the way we treat asylum seekers.

Even if one accepts that there is a direct proportional correlation between population growth and environmental damage – and I’d question that – the fact remains that the annual asylum seekers intake is less that 0.1% of Australia’s population. By all means let’s have a debate about 457s and baby bonuses, but please don’t make the environment an excuse for treating people who have already suffered terribly in an abominable fashion.