Rhian,

This backgrounder from the Center for Immigration Studies in the US contains a graph showing immigration numbers over American history and the rate of return (migrants who came for a few years and went home).

http://cis.org/1965ImmigrationAct-MassImmigration

The drastic reduction in immigration in the US as a result of the 1921 and 1924 bills was essentially part of the violent public reaction against the first era of globalization after World War I.

I never claimed that mass migration was making us poorer on average. Rich countries can get away with quite a lot for a long time. I am saying, contrary to Prof. Curson and others, that it is not making us significantly better off on average. The distributional effects, however, are making some people much better off at the expense of others (see my links to the Tim Colebatch and Bob Birrell articles in my previous post). This concentrates wealth and power in relatively few hands. My other objections relate to the hammering that our greater numbers are giving to the environment in the habitable parts of this country, the erosion of our safety margins in a world that is being affected by serious global environmental problems and resource shortages, the erosion of social cohesion from very high diversity, particularly from highly incompatible cultures, and the assaults on personal freedom due to greater crowding and more political correctness. Another relates to the reduction in quality of life due to clogged roads, unaffordable housing suitable for families, long waits in hospital emergency rooms, permanent water restrictions, etc.

You say conditions are more crowded elsewhere. True, but why should we copy them? This article gives some graphs showing the magnitude of the housing affordability issue. If unaffordable housing is due to "poor planning", how did all our politicians and urban planners in so many cities all get hit with the stupid stick?

http://www.propertyobserver.com.au/residential/how-150-years-of-australian-housing-prices-shows-that-the-bubble-will-likely-come-to-an-end-philip-soos/2013021759324/Page-1

If the CIS Center of Immigration Studies "researches" something it must be true.... just like Birrell's CPUR at Monash University a preferred source of Colebatch at The Age, Manauskas at News Corp and van Onselen at Macrobusiness, even though CPUR does not produce research but like CIS produces opinions presented as fact..... which journalists seem to prefer.

No coincidence both are linked to John Tanton and indirectly the Scaife Foundation (which is linked to the Tea Party movement); all with the aim of stopping or reducing rights of non European immigrants and residents (any objectives observer or researcher knows why, vs their screams of but we're not racist!).

Leads onto related article from The Economist http://tinyurl.com/l6ee7v7 on benefits of temp workers.

Firstly, when journalists, media, researchers, advocates, politicians, real estate industry etc. do not clarify their definition of "immigration" and "immigrant" i.e. making no distinction between permanents and temps caught up in the net overseas migration NOM, it's "dog whistling", whether intentional or not.

The Economist has introduced a much more descriptive term "churn" which reflects the fact that most in the NOM are not "(permanent) immigrants" but temporary residents such as international students, "EU immigrant" workers etc..

The advantage of such temps is that while they contribute financially through fees, work, taxes etc.. they are not eligible for benefits, and will not remain permanently to use them anyway.

Further, like in Australia where any similar debate is xenophobically or falsely framed by nativists around perceived high rates of immigration and populationg growth (which is correlated to sustainable environment, infrastructure etc.) by conflating permanent with temporary, the same benefits are ignored.

For the UK, the EU mobility allows 2 million+ UK citizens to reside in the EU for retirement, aged care, study, work, business, investment etc. (formally and informally, latter case not paying tax).

All quite logical and generally a win win for all, but UK politicians like in Australia feel the need for bigots, UKIP, BNP etc. to be placated by scare stories without any basis whatsoever.

Andras Smith, you're the one making wild claims.

I haven't heard anyone in this or any other thread who's proposed "stopping or reducing rights of non European immigrants and residents".

The question is whether more of those people should be granted those rights in the *future*.

"making no distinction between permanents and temps"

And temporary means what?
They don't drink water? Don't need housing? Bus seats?
Whether they're temporary or permanent makes no difference to resource consumption, crowding, job competition, etc.

When the temps leave, they're replaced by other temps, so the numbers never "go down" at any point. Why would you exclude them from the stats?

The EU's people movement has caused significant problems, with Eastern Europe losing much of its productive population, inhibiting their own development.

The UK has one of the highest rates of immigration and much of it goes to one city: London.
That means all the "stress" is focused in one place. Little wonder some people complain.

Temps contribute then leave without access to pensions, generally don't/can't buy property and qualitatively different resource use, vs the permanent resident population who do have access to benefits etc.

Central Europe like elsewhere has gone backwards due to reform fatigue, GFC and credit bingeing, politicians playing the race card against foreign direct investment, gypsies, impossibly high taxes for sole traders & SMEs who produce wealth, employ and and pay taxes, limiting unemployment benfefits (while maintaining pensions), encouraging cronyism i.e. corruption, media restrictions, collapse of tax base etc. while older generations if employed, "hold their chairs" precluding advancement for younger generations.

Re. UK, assume you are a 'nativist'? Significant part of nativist belief system like a cult is to ignore or divert attention from inconvenient facts e.g. high immigration or population growth is reached via distortion of data (and of course attacking and smearing observers).

London is now the 2nd biggest Hungarian city, similar for other CEE nations (+ Berlin), a great success story of the EU, labour can move where it is needed, and return home when not, it's called "turnstile migration".

These younger generations of workers (vs unemployed at home) will be be a huge asset for their nations and the EU, but as many find, they are not wanted because nationalistic nativist states prefer the status quo.....and new ideas, foreign languages etc. don't fit their authoritarian image of nirvana.

Other issue for younger generation in the EU if working, is supporting existing state funded pensioners, while trying to save for their own future, with little or no chance of a state pension in future.

Germany too has become very reliant upon workers from elsewhere in the EU, plus outside and like the UK, I don't think it's some Australian's business how they choose to run their nations.

Do you approve of a former nazi regime importing workers (Slav, Turk, Magyar, etc.) or too extreme? Anti pops brigade simply cannot hide their authoritarian leanings and obsession for a past most Europeans would prefer never happened..... many would tell the anglo world to 'f off we're full' (of bigots already).

Divergence,

The data in the report show that the USA has had significant positive net migration for most of the past 200 years with the exception of the early 1930s.

The UDIA attributes deteriorating affordability in Australia to a range of causes including:
- Restrictions in land supply in some markets;
- Increases in taxes and charges
- Substantial increases in infrastructure charges;
- Costs associated with the preparation of development applications;
- The trend toward the construction of larger houses or households with smaller household numbers;
- Policies that restrict land supply as a means to encourage higher density and consolidation of population;
- Costs of compliance with increased environmental requirements

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Former_Committees/hsaf/submissions/~/media/wopapub/senate/committee/hsaf_ctte/submissions/sub44_pdf.ashx

Andras Smith "attacking and smearing", "authoritarian", "obsession".
You're referring to your own kind.

You are the authoritarians, imposing your schizophrenic "one-worldism/multiculturalism", demonising any critics or skeptics, and inventing "crimes" like "racial vilification" and "discriminating" against a job applicant who covers their face or carries a dagger 24/7.

"I don't think it's some Australian's business how they choose to run their nations"

My concern is Australia. *You* brought up the EU.
Are you Australian? You sound American.
If you're not Australian, then this article and its issues are not *your* business.

Temps leave, but they're simply replaced by others.
The faces change, the numbers don't.

They may not buy property, but they still need housing.
They take jobs, but probably pay no tax in Australia (declaring their income in their homeland, if they're honest).

They consume resources like any other person (water, electricity, food, roads, trains/buses) and produce waste (garbage, pollution).
You can't simply ignore their impact.

"Do you approve of a former nazi regime importing workers"

*Former* regimes don't do anything at all. As they don't exist.