My personal belief about why we have a migration program is because western business forces have a considerable investment in keeping the world economy exactly how it is at present, where the third-world do majority of the world’s low-skilled manufacture, leaving unskilled westerners to either 'retrain' OR 'PERISH'.

Australia's massive migration program has resulted in the 2010 demographics with about 45% Anglo, 10-15% other European, 30% Asian, 10% Middle East, etc.

But ask yourself this: IF Australia never had a large migrant program and we only had a handful of Asians and Indians etc. to participate in the economy, do you think that these “western business forces” would have been ABLE to achieve the feat over 50 years of . . . ‘removing ALL manufacture and factory jobs’ . . . and ‘giving them to the Asian markets’?

Surely there would have been protests and even riots.

However think about what happens to the social perception when a nation introduces millions of new citizens from third world cultures (the type of places where the cheap slave labour exists and the Western business elite desire to exploit) into an economy which is slowly being dismantled and reconstructed to fit into the world they project where NO manufacture jobs exist in the West but only in the third-world.

For example, a US car company closes all but 1 factory in Australia as it cannot compete with China’s cheap prices, but they reduce the minimum wages to level most westerners would consider highly unfair. Having thousands and millions of people some who are from places where such low wages and worse are acceptable, it is likely that whilst the working class Anglos are wondering what to do about this situation, the newly arrived Chinese migrant and others like him fill the job places leaving the Anglos who are not culturally used to such unethical conditions, remain unemployed.

Fancy that. The so-called "bogan ethics standard" which makes him abhore mistreatment and slavery is the very thing keeping him unemployed

Consider what is actually happening here -

The wealthy business classes of the West have established the world market set-up so that ALL manufacture and assembly line factory jobs are in Asia.

What was the point in the west "banning" "slavery" centuries ago not to mention the myriad of further advancements in ethics since when we have abandoned this ethic and standard by our actions in participating in bringing about world markets where Asia’s slave-base does all the manufacturing jobs.

Essentially with this the “West condones slavery”, oppression of all forms (especially political being in China) and worst of all they are making into superpowers nations such as China and India which together have about half the world’s population.

But the main reason this is such an extremely bad thing is that about half the population of both China & India exists in poverty, slavery, exploitation and third-world squalid conditions while the other half live in the same modern wealth as a middle-class westerner. The problem is that the wealthy and middle classes in these nations are not allowing anything at all to “trickle down” which is the whole point of economic development as is evident in the West.

And unlike with western powers (even the US) no matter what the government wishes to do globally the force of “public opinion” of their citizenry can at any time force the government to stop, cultures where they care less about exploiting their own poor will not care about any "foreigner".The best example of this in the west was with how the US lost and withdrew from the Vietnam conflict in 60s-70s mostly from “public opinion” being against innocent Asian villagers dying in the cross-fire.

Recall Sudan some years back and the northern Mujahedeen attempting to genocide the entire southern darker Christian people and the US or even UN could do nothing since China vetoed any help since China had oil interests in Sudan.

How's that for a small preview of what's to come

Jottiikii, there was a baby boom in the 1950s precisely because people felt confident about the future and their apparently inevitably rising living standards.

Today, how many Australians would have such optimism?

Instead of solving economic problems, current immigration makes people less confident and optimistic, as they see their once pleasant neighbourhoods turn into dirty, dangerous dystopias.

Who'd want to inflict such social chaos on innocent children?

Interesting article, and for those negatively concerned about 'population growth', they need to be sure they are not being informed by those whom have an interest in eugenics and qualitative issues about 'immigrants'.

Over population spruiking sounds plausible and fair, till protagonists 'lurch' into social territory of identity etc.. then it becomes proxy 'white Australia' policy, like media types claiming to be vicitims of anti white racism.....

Further, for many without background in statistics and definitions, it's popular now in the media and amongst 'demographers' to conflate definitions, inflate population, or immigration and confuse people.

Population growth is now mostly driven by temporary visitors staying for 12+ months e.g. 2nd year backpackers, international students, 457 visa workers etc.. as they are included in Net Overseas Migration, as are Australian citizens when returning for 12+ months.

However, they are deemed to be 'immigrants' by media etc. which leads many to believe that Australia's skilled and other migration programs are out of control, when they are not. Further, claims that these temporary visitors will become permanent ignores the fact they come under the migration cap.

What is not explained is new definition of population from 2006 to include such temps inflated headline population numbers. Further, if temps were not included in Australia's population it would be stagnant, and be ageing too.

How would Australia look without permanent immigration, temp workers and neither backpacker nor international education industries? Greyer and more conservative (like all political parties) no doubt...

How would Australia look without permanent immigration,
Andras Smith,
That is a very silly argument & an irrelevant question. Without permanent immigration the whole world would look different. Is anyone actually arguing about perment immigration ? I don't recall reading anything on that. What people are saying is too much permanent & unsuitable people immigration. In the 50's permanent immigration was beneficial by the right kind of immigrants. In 2014 these people are no longer looking to come to Australia.

Andras Smith,
You’ve made some very sensible and sobering comments that hopefully the “anti-pops” shall take heed of.
On the other hand I’m concerned that several contributors here imply that racism, nationalism, supremacism, paranoia, etc. are all that lies beneath the “anti-pops” agenda—just as those who are not “denialists” are often painted as “alarmists,” or greens are diagnosed in much the same way as women were once deemed hysterics. The problem is that what might be complex and subtle debates are reduced to the level of ignorant populism, with one sided condemning our whole way of life and the other defending it, neither being prepared to consider the full implications.
Pertinent as your comments are apropos the “eugenics” etc. agenda of nationalists, there’s no hint of a deeper critique in your own comments, which impute to our global economic institution the inevitable context of the debate—the master which must ultimately be served. This is the same pretext of the article, and indeed the rationale that brings all sides (more or less) together: “it’s the economy, stupid!”
We have the likes of Dick Smith claiming we "can” prosper without population growth (profiting from growth offshore—as if we were separate and self-sufficient planets), and the neoliberal cohort treating the planet like a magic pudding; both sides favouring an “economic solution”.
My argument is that capitalism is the problem and can never be the solution—except by dismantling it.

I’m concerned thus not to be conflated with the “anti-pops,” nor indeed with the weighty deliberations of either (popular) side of this bipolar debate--which we might liken to that other debate between the warring factions of Lillyput and Blefuscu.