Conrad,
Your writing may have had some credence in the 1950’s, none at all now.
As Ludwig points out, we live in a land with scarce and depleting resources of arable land. The existing population is only supported by the profligate use of fossil fuels.
Look ahead a decade when oil and gas are in significant decline, do you think Australia can support its population. Can the world support 9 billion plus?
Australia should be setting an example by reducing its population. Foreign aid should be to assist other countries to live within their means.
Australia doesn’t need any more migrants from any source.

Here's the BIG PICTURE:

The last time Conrad wrote an article of OLO. He was bemoaning "white privilege"--whilst keeping his own white butt firmly seated in his own privileged position

This time around Conrad is -- in effect --urging we open our borders to any illegal who chooses to boat in.

Do you get the picture?

You could go in harder Conrad with these mongrels:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=16485

It's like Bill and Ben the Flowerpot Men, where there's Shocka, there's Ludwig, his cackling enabler. If you wonder why the depopulationists want to slash immigration, then read the above article plus type in 'John Tanton' and 'Roy Beck' - their international supporters. You'll soon get the idea.

I note the writer is interested in intergenerational issues. That's the shape of things to come in Australia.

There's more to life than just existing & that's what the pro immigration crowd doesn't understand. They are too insipid to comprehend that their idealism is costing them their life as they know it.
99.9 % of the so-called or even genuine refugees from the middle east have no concept of quality of life in a natural surrounds. They're simply & who can blame them, trying to go somewhere where there aren't bullets whizzing around their ears at any given moment. They do not for one moment consider that other, slightly more sane people are treasuring the life they have managed to establish in this country, do not wish to jeopardise this quality of life by inheriting the middle eastern problems & perpetute them here.
To middle easterners beautiful bushland with quiet surrounds means nothing whereas we value it greatly. They are enclave people favouring masses.

In the past, I have wondered what positive things immigration has done for me personally.

I am still wondering, because I can’t think of anything.

The things I liked doing in the past, such as fishing and surfing, I no longer do much anymore, as the fishing spots and surfing breaks are overcrowded due to overpopulation.

So nearly 100% reduction in my quality of life, due to overpopulation that mostly comes from immigration.

A multicultural society from immigration is a complete joke.

Australia is hugely Americanised in our politics, in our cultural pursuits, in the way we shop, and even in the way we eat, but someone born here can now feel a complete stranger in their own street, with no feeling of national identity at all, due to so many immigrants.

Another zero for immigration, and of course another zero for immigration improving our natural environment, because it hasn’t.

Unless someone thinks increased consumption and increased clearing of native bushland to build more suburban jungles is improving the natural environment.

But the biggest zero, and the biggest joke, would be that immigration improves the country economically.

Federally, we seem to have a debt of $320 billion, with a total household debt of $1.84 trillion, and about 7 unemployed for every available or vacant job.

So personally, immigration has done zero for me, and nationally, immigration seems to be doing zero also, unless overpopulation of the country is considered to be a positive, or a short term to medium term goal.

There are two main camps of pro-immigrationists. Some just don't understand that there are no "boundless plains to share", or that just because mass migration was of general benefit in the past that it necessarily always will be in a very different world. Australia really isn't a big country. It is a small to medium sized country wrapped around a big desert. Most of what isn't desert is semi-arid rangeland, with only about 6% arable. The average quality of our arable land is very low. From World Bank figures, we got 2.2 tonnes of grain per hectare in 2012 (a good year), while France got 7.5 tonnes, and we only got 1.1 tonnes in 2006, a drought year. See these rainfall and soil quality maps from Dr. Chris Dixon of the CSIRO

http://www.australianpoet.com/boundless.html

See also this inherent land quality map of the world from the US Department of Agriculture

http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/use/worldsoils/?cid=nrcs142p2_054011

We also have serious problems with land degradation and environmental deterioration. The Australian Academy of Science looked at all these issues in 1994 and recommended a safe upper limit to our population of 23 million.

The second group of pro-immigrationists are motivated by greed. While the average citizen doesn't benefit economically (see the 2006 Productivity Commission report on immigration, esp. p. 154) and has to put up with a more degraded environment and a lesser quality of life due to crowding and congestion, the population growth acts as a giant siphon pumping wealth up to the top 1%, especially in the FIRE sector [Finance, Insurance, and Real Estate]. They get bigger domestic markets, easy profits from speculation in residential land and other vital resources, and a cheap, compliant work force that they don't even have to train. It was recently reported that the median house price in Sydney has now passed $800,000.

Malcolm King wants to pretend that this is all about racism, not greed. He doesn't mention that he has a public relations company. Despite being repeatedly challenged, he refuses to deny that this company is being paid to rubbish people who want to stabilize the population (not 'depopulate').