OK Paddy,

It is no secret that there are growthist demographers, but why should we believe your friend instead of Bob Birrell or Katharine Betts? This is from the 2006 Productivity Commission report on immigration (p. 154)

"Most of the economic benefits associated with an increase in skilled migration accrues to the immigrants themselves. For existing residents, capital owners receive additional income, with owners of capital in those sectors experiencing the largest output gains enjoying the largest gains in capital income. On the other hand, the real average annual incomes of existing resident workers grow more slowly than in the base-case, as additional immigrants place downward pressure on real wages.

"The economic impact of skilled migration is small when compared with other drivers of productivity and income per capita. For example, over the same period, growth in income per capita from technological progress and other sources of productivity growth, and long-term demographic changes, could be expected to be about 1.5 per cent per year, or $14 434, by 2024-25 (Commission estimates). The relative significance of an increase in skilled migration to overall per capita income growth is illustrated in figure 8.2. This compares projected per capita income over the next 21 years in the base case with that arising from the increased-migration simulation. It can be seen that the impact of migration is very small compared with other drivers of per capita income growth."

See also the graphs on p. 147 and p. 155

http://www.pc.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0006/9438/migrationandpopulation.pdf

(cont'd)

(cont'd)

You and Andras make much of the ABS decision to include students and temporary migrants (staying for longer than 12 months). Including them in the ABS statistics will only make a difference in the short term, as they count as emigrants when they go home (if they do). What matters is the difference between immigration and emigration, not immigration on its own.

Please link to a racist post of mine or admit that you lied, just as you lied when you said that I worked for the Australian Conservation Foundation (I never have) and lied when you accused me of not caring about the environment (I have donation receipts to prove the opposite). I note that you still haven't denied that your public relations company is being paid to attack people like us. Saying that you haven't denied it is not a smear, as it is the truth. Likewise with Andras. Saying that he hasn't denied being a migration agent is the truth, not a smear. All that you two have to do is to speak up and say that this is wrong.

Andras still hasn't explained why a Black man would serve on the board of CIS or why that crew of "racists" would allow a Black man on their board. The Southern Poverty Law Center has no credibility at all, even among Leftists who are pro-immigration.

"For the record, I am totally opposed to CIS’s stance on immigration, as I stated at the press conference. I accepted the invitation to speak on the panel because it came from my friend Jerry Kammer, of whom I am a big admirer.

"I also agreed to the invitation because, much like CIS, I feel that the Law Center is essentially a fraud and that it has a habit of casually labeling organizations as “hate groups.” (Which doesn’t mean that some of the groups it criticizes aren’t reprehensible.) In doing so, the SPLC shuts down debate, stifles free speech, and most of all, raises a pile of money, very little of which is used on behalf of poor people."

http://harpers.org/blog/2010/03/hate-immigration-and-the-southern-poverty-law-center/

traveloz

There is the real probability that we have to bring in immigrants, simply to provide services to other immigrants that were brought in.

This can lead to exponential growth, (or out of control growth).

For example: Australia has about 3 doctors per 1000 people (which is also the OECD average).

If we bring in 200,000 immigrants per year, about 600 of those will have to be doctors to provide medical services to the other immigrants brought in for that year.

But where do these doctors come from?

Many seem to be coming from countries such as India that currently has only 0.7 doctors per 1000 people (well below the OECD average).

I don’t know how our government or pro-immigration supporters can ethically justify that, but they seem to be able to.

only 0.7 doctors per 1000 people
Incomuicardo,
Yes but if they're three times more competent it evens out don't it ?

individual

Foregin doctors may not be competent according to this.

"Half of foreign doctors would not be able to practise in Britain if they were subjected to the same level of scrutiny as British doctors, a study by University College London has found "

"Figures from 2012 showed that of 669 doctors who were struck off or suspended in the previous five years, 420 had trained abroad."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/nhs/10773857/Half-of-foreign-doctors-are-below-British-standards.html

So maybe we should only have doctors trained in the UK as immigrants, (although this may then leave the UK short of doctors).

I sense imigration has no economic justification (other than aiding real estate agents and universities), and also no social justification, and absolutely no environmental justification in any way at all.

"Half of foreign doctors would not be able to practise in Britain if they were subjected to the same level of scrutiny as British doctors, a study by University College London has found "Incomuicardo,
Well, they would say that & so would the Australians as probably would the indians too.
From personal experience I have consulted Doctors from Australia, from Britain, from India & from Indonesia & for my situation it was an Australian Doctor on his first job who proved the most sensible. The older, supposedly more experienced totally missed the point whereas the young feller picked it it up instantly.
The Briton was the most incompetent & he was the medical Super. He was more of bureaucrat than a medico.
Anyhow, going back to the point of the thread, if it is the far Right that snuggles up to the depopulationists then so be it. it certainly makes a thousand times more sense than the Left constantly bleating environment & at the same time promoting population increase. Morons really, the Left !