The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Why Australia should be talking migration at the G20 > Comments

Why Australia should be talking migration at the G20 : Comments

By Carla Wilshire, published 1/8/2014

People movement has now become one of the most powerful tools for development and a significant player in global growth. Fueling this age of migration is the reciprocal benefit for both sending and receiving countries.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All
Interesting and thought provoking article.
That said, we need to do many things very differently, to encourage maximized migration assisted economic growth.
We simply cannot and should not follow migration with largely overdue reconstruction/infrastructure development/roll out!
And we need to close the tax loopholes that almost alone, create these cart before the horse conditions!
We who make all our own tax laws, hold it in our hands to remediate these anomalies!
Only one thing prevents massively overdue tax reform and simplification, and that is political intransigence, no doubt fueled by a stiff measure of self serving vested/special interest!
And if you find that incomprehensible, just pause and look for just a moment, at the passing parade of past and present pollies, transversing through ICAC!
Real tax reform should result in a completely unavoidable, stand alone, expenditure tax.
Which can and should be progressively reduced, as former professional avoiders, are finally included in the fold.
After tax reform, we need to set about building an alternative energy system, that then provides the world's cheapest energy, and very doable, if we but embrace cheaper than coal thorium power; with each modest reactor, connected to its own micro grid/industrial estate!
The world's cheapest tax coupled to the world's lowest energy costs, will have migrants queuing to relocate to these shores, bringing high tech skills and manufacture with them, along with high tech manufacture/entrepreneurs and millions of cashed up self funded retirees, seeking to escape European tax collectors/wealth tax/death duties etc!
High tech, as many will agree, is the only future we have!
And we shouldn't be adverse to relocating whole nations, with lots of technical savvy/high tech niche manufacture/military inventories; given that could well serve our most vital interests!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 1 August 2014 9:18:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"For receiving countries, an ever-aging population and the need to fill gaps in their labour market make the attraction of migrants an imperative for economic survival."

Fail.

For migration to impact aging, immigrants would have to be *considerably* younger than the existing population.
That is not the case.

Gaps in labour cannot be filled internally?
If a developing country, with 10% of our GDP has the resources to train people, how can we not have them?

Both those claims are utterly bogus.

So if that's all there is, then there's NO justification (from our end) for immigration, particularly demographically-incongruent immigration.

"a 3 percent increase in the labor force of developed countries through migration would result in a net annual gain of $56 billion"

In the *entire* developed world?
That's pennies!

"For developing countries migration has unprecedented benefits"

I don't care.

"Nowhere in the OECD does immigration have a strongly negative impact on the average wage of citizens."

And nowhere does it have a *strong* benefit.
3-4%. Pfft!

"strike the right balance between unlocking the opportunity of immigration and preventing the exploitation of migrants."

And what of the local population? Irrelevant!

"open up discussion"

i.e. more, more, more.

"We are a country born of generations of migration"

During the initial settlement, yes.
By the 1940s though, 90% were native born.

A new people had been created, but are now being destroyed.
But it ain't genocide if you're White.

"we should be capable of leading the charge"

In the opposite direction.
Less, less, less.

We don't need to make our country unrecognisable and risk utter social breakdown for a few extra pennies.
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 1 August 2014 10:26:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
There is a major ethical issue regards the commoditisation of people, and using people as a unit of work for industry.

Or, to put it more simply, bringing people into the country to be work-fodder for industry.

But the concept that immigrants have to be brought in to reduce the average age of the country and reduce the aging population is probably the most dumb idea I have ever come across.

There reaches a point where the country cannot take any more immigrants, and then the population ages, and then the problem is much, much worse, because there are now many more people in the country than the country can ever support.

But those who favour immigration and overpopulation, (and the consumption of our natural resources, and the destruction of our wildlife and scenic areas, and the loss of culture and national identity, and the congestion and overcrowding, and the increasing infrastructure costs), cannot seem to see this simple piece of logic.
Posted by Incomuicardo, Friday, 1 August 2014 12:35:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
High on the agenda of the G20 is "Bail in".ie a Cyprus style confiscation of your bank accounts when they get into trouble. As a depositor we are defined as an unsecured creditor of the banks.

Our banks have derivative exposure 8 times their assets which are our over valued mortgages.

The Solution ? http://www.cecaust.com.au/ Sign the petition to bring in the Glass Steagall Act.Bill Clinton abolished this act in the USA in 1999.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 1 August 2014 12:38:41 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I think this girl actually expects some fools will believe her statistics. Come on Carla, just because some academic with an agenda says so, doesn't make it true.

If you do, just think about all that money being sent home to mum, particularly if the immigrants are Muslim, & it is all welfare money being exported.
Posted by Hasbeen, Friday, 1 August 2014 3:45:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The article is pure propaganda.

Immigration is divisive and leads to a lack of social cohesion and a decrease in trust. Multicultural communities tend to be more atomised as people hunker down in communities of like-minded individuals.

Look at the different reaction of the Japanese and Americans after the tsuname and Hurricane Katrina. One society had the 'benefits' of migration the other didn't. I know which one I'd rather belong to.

It's such a shame we have become determined to pull our society apart. Look at Detroit in the US. The flood of low paid immigrants has destroyed the US economy. Rich people get cheap maids and corporations book massive profits. For what?
Posted by dane, Friday, 1 August 2014 9:08:20 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Carla Wilshire I think it would be more sensible to take migration to the UN instead of bothering the G20 with a problem that is entirely of the UN's making.
Posted by individual, Friday, 1 August 2014 9:37:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lets examine how a reasonable and well sourced article which discusses global migration is treated by the depopulationists such as Shocka, et al.

"Fail, bogus, I don't care, pfft!"

That's the sum of their intellectual contribution. No counter sources, no verifiable statistics, no use of logic, just 'pfft!' Normally Divergence would have inserted her usual instrumentalist paragraph from the 2006 PC report that migrants are not worth as much as dinky di, true blue Aussies ... Oi!... Oi!... Oi! Must be on holiday.

In fact, I can't remember them writing an article on OLO in the last three years. Michael Lardelli used to but he went off in a huff. Pity, as he was the only one with two neurons to rub together. What we're seeing is a new form of racism coming out of the sociobiology paradigm as per below - ably assisted by Roy Beck and John Tanton in the States.

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

The SPA/SPP (same thing) are just Stormfront in a sweater.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Saturday, 2 August 2014 8:11:29 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malcolm 'Paddy' King

Regards the propaganda myth that immigration produces a huge economic gain for Australia: -

“The overall economic effect of migration appears to be positive but small,consistent with previous Australian and overseas studies.”

Regards the propaganda myth that immigration decreases the average age of the population: -

“Net overseas migration is contributing about half of Australia’s population growth and is marginally raising the proportion of ‘younger-aged’ working people in the population, with little impact on the ageing of the entire population.”

Regards the propaganda myth that immigrants are highly skilled: -

Nearly 60% of immigrants have no post school education at all.

Regards the propaganda myth that immigrants bring diversity and enhance our culture: -

“migrants are not very different in relevant respects from the Australian-born population and, over time, the differences become smaller.”

The above comes from the “Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth” by the Productivity Commission

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

That report was developed in 2006.

But since then a number of things have changed, including: -

- A growing federal deficit,
- Shrinking tax revenue,
- Increased unemployment particularly for youth,
- A massive debt problem in the US and in China,
- An increased awareness of the environmental effects of our overpopulation and further population growth,
- An awareness of the loss of culture and national identity in Australia.

All adding to the negative that is immigration
Posted by Incomuicardo, Saturday, 2 August 2014 9:17:44 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malcolm 'Paddy' King,
We all know it goes against you grain but you won't be able to brush aside reality for that much longer. May I suggest you spend some time in the european cities now saturated with non-productive, non-contributing so-called migrants ? Is this what you wish for Australia to become too ? Not very patriotic in my book & it almost smells of some perverse satisfaction of self inflicted harm. Don't you have children or don't you care what life they'll have if your proposals were to be heeded ?
I really think it high time for some of you idealists to sit back, watch & think.
Posted by individual, Saturday, 2 August 2014 9:37:46 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just try getting any attention in casualty at Logan hospital, note the appearance of those filling the waiting room, then suggest migration is good for the existing population.

This is the case anywhere there is much public housing. It is totally swamped with our new "citizens".
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 2 August 2014 10:28:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To obtain zero net migration, the Australian Government would need to:

1. Set the skilled permanent entry to zero because the loss of Australian citizens is very small. No movement would be permitted onshore to a permanent skilled visa.

2. Stop the 457 visa or limit the stay to under 12 months in which case the visa holder would not be counted into the population. 457 visa holders include a lot of people who operate in an international labour market. This would be like imposing a trade sanction on one’s own country.

3. An international student would be permitted to enter Australia only when another international student had left. Present policy is to encourage international students because this improves the economies of scale in Australian educational institutions and promotes diversity of course offerings in universities. A restrictive policy would see the closure of many Australian universities.

4. End the Trans-Tasman Travel agreement between Australia and New Zealand or modify it so that a New Zealander could come to Australia only when an Australian went to New Zealand.

5. Change the Migration Act to make it illegal for Australians to bring their non-Australian spouses to Australia, or to allow this only when someone leaves Australia. This would mean that Australian citizens would need to be warned not to marry a non-resident of Australia or be prepared to live outside Australia if they do so. Humanitarian immigrants would not be permitted to obtain their spouses from their country of origin. They would have to join the boat movement.

6. No parents or dependent children of Australian residents would be permitted to enter.

Barking mad.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Saturday, 2 August 2014 10:53:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Nearly 60% of immigrants have no post school education at all."

Really? I mean, REALLY? Not the reverse?

ABS 6250 , Nov 2013

"The education levels of recent migrants and temporary residents have a significant impact on their settlement outcomes during their first 10 years in Australia.

"An estimated 62% of recent migrants had obtained a non-school qualification before arrival in Australia. Of these, 72% had obtained a Bachelor Degree or higher, 15% had an Advanced Diploma or Diploma and 12% had a Certificate level qualification. Almost one third (30%) of recent migrants had obtained a non-school qualification after arrival in Australia. Of these, an estimated 42% had obtained a Bachelor Degree or higher.

"Of the recent migrants who had obtained a non-school qualification before arrival in Australia and who had a job since arriving in Australia, 52% had used their highest non-school qualification in their first job."

Please read anything you can - if you can read - on Australia's skilled migration program.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Saturday, 2 August 2014 11:15:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Of the recent migrants who had obtained a non-school qualification before arrival in Australia and who had a job since arriving in Australia, 52% had used their highest non-school qualification in their first job."

Nice qualification there Malcolm 'Paddy' King. Can't call you a liar, just a conman who twists statistics.

I wonder what we would find if we looked at those who had not had an official job since arriving in oz. Of course we are never going to get a study of them. The result would not suit our lefty academics agenda.

How many have not had a job in years & have no intention of getting one, at least not in "white" economy. After all the black economy is so much more profitable for ethnics. If they did that they would have to pay tax, & would loose their welfare cheque.

Work, not blood likely.
Posted by Hasbeen, Saturday, 2 August 2014 11:29:25 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes Hasbeen, good points and well made!
However, our cart before the horse approach is all wrong and has created exactly what you point out, too many people, and not enough infrastructure!
And cities that had the house full sign put out, sometime last century!
We could however, build whole new cities, each one replete with an industrial estate and a CBD.
In other words, entirely self sufficient.
And then invite whole already democratized communities to resettle here, much in the way, early America was settled.
And yes, only with the express consent of the original custodians, who have the most to gain from the re-population of large empty locations/spaces?
Which the new settler, would help transform, by reusing perfectly fine water!
Yes I know, there will be huge new outlays!
But if those same outlays produce economically performing infrastructure and what have you, any liability we create internally, [and only risible rank political ideology prevents it,] then the new assets can then be used to completely offset, any internally created debit ledger!
It's not a new idea, and has worked with comparative huge success elsewhere.
That is until carpet bagging foreigners got into the act, and ruined it for the majority, while benefiting a comparatively tiny quisling minority.
And no, social credit is nothing like communism, just free market banking principles, finally working exclusively, for the government and the people!
And from where I sit, a very nice, very welcome change, as opposed to slowly going down a common economic gurgler, which left as is, will eventually swallow the most privileged as well.
I mean, increased economic activity, can only benefit us all, just like the comparatively similar, [much too big for us to afford] snowy mountains scheme did!
Or put another way, it's the economy stupid!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Saturday, 2 August 2014 11:38:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malcolm 'Paddy' King

It all depends on what is defined as an immigrant, and if Family Reunion immigrants, New Zealanders drifting to Australia looking for work, and Humanitarian immigrants are considered, then they generally have low qualifications, a high unemployment rate, and low participation rate.

“In summary, immigrants have a lower participation rate overall than does the Australian-born population.”

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

Initial qualifications mean little anyway, as a generation Y can have an estimated 10 career changes in their lifetime, and each career change will require different qualifications.

So even if someone is brought into the country because of their current qualifications, those qualifications may not be in demand within a few years.

Nor will the children of immigrants have any more qualifications than the average Australian child.

The economic advantages of immigration are minimal, but we are now paying for the overpopulation of the country through loss of our environment, a never ending battle against congestion, and loss of our culture and national identity.
Posted by Incomuicardo, Saturday, 2 August 2014 12:26:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Incommunicado, in 2012, The Australian's George Megalogenis, did a study on migrant employment levels. Your fears really have more to do with being bred out. There will always be a home for you at the Sustainable Population/Stormfront alliance.

“MIGRANTS are officially more employable than Australian-born job seekers, claiming 81,000 new jobs over the past year while 38,000 locals lost their own jobs.

The British, Malaysians and Filipinos are the main immigrant groups that enjoy lower unemployment rates, while New Zealanders and Indians have higher labour force participation rates than the Australian-born.

A detailed analysis of the Bureau of Statistics jobs data shows that while immigrants account for less than 30 per cent of the labour force, they have claimed more than half the jobs created since the start of 2010.

Newly arrived immigrants are going straight to work and helping keep the economy growing. The figures for November, which are not seasonally adjusted, place the unemployment rate for Australian-born at 5 per cent and the overseas-born at 4.8 per cent.

Immigrants from Britain and Ireland had an unemployment rate of 2.8 per cent, Malaysia 3.8 per cent and The Philippines 4.8 per cent. The Chinese were on par with the Australian-born at 5 per cent, the New Zealanders above them at 5.4 per cent and the Indians at 6.8 per cent.

But the New Zealand- and India-born are still gaining jobs overall and their participation rates of 78.7 per cent and 76.9 per cent respectively are much better than the Australian-born figure of 68.1 per cent.

Vietnamese-born and the Lebanese-born have above-average unemployment rates of 9.7 per cent and 8.4 per cent, respectively, and below-average participation rates (58 per cent and 45.3 per cent).

The Vietnamese and Lebanese have traditionally suffered higher unemployment rates because their intakes contained large numbers of refugees who arrived during Australia's stagflation era in the 1970s and early 1980s… The analysis by The Australian confirms that skilled migrants have been covering the gaps in the local labour supply since 2006."
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Saturday, 2 August 2014 12:40:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
If we did not murder approximately 100000 babies each year I don't think their would be a need for this discussion. Secular Humanism is achieving the destruction of the West. Islam only needs to keep doing what it does and await its time. Its a pity for them though that our Creator will not be mocked and will have His way in the end. The trashing of all the principles that made the West great by Christophobes will in the end destroy themselves.
Posted by runner, Saturday, 2 August 2014 12:42:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malcolm 'Paddy' King

Immigrants should have zero unemployment, and a full participation rate, because they are brought in to do a job.

And a job is already there waiting for them to fill.

Or is it that our government really doesn’t know where skills are required, and is just making a wild guess at job forecasts?

“In 1999 the ABS forecast the total size of the Australian labour force up to 2008. ABS estimates were short by 750,000 people. If we can’t accurately forecast the total labour supply, how is it possible to actually project individual occupations within the labour market?”

http://theconversation.com/governments-play-flawed-skilled-jobs-guessing-game-22527

Out by 750,000 people.

Not good guessing.

Or good management of the country.

And considering the general state of our government, (i.e. ZERO confidence in it), I would have no hesitation in stating that immigration should be dramatically cut.

Just to err on the side of safety, (before we all go down the plug hole together).
Posted by Incomuicardo, Saturday, 2 August 2014 1:22:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paddy,

Incomuicardo is doing a marvellous job without me.

<Normally Divergence would have inserted her usual instrumentalist paragraph from the 2006 PC report that migrants are not worth as much as dinky di, true blue Aussies ... Oi!... Oi!... Oi! Must be on holiday.>

Lie. I challenge you to link to any post of mine that makes any such suggestion, nor is that what the Productivity Commission report says. I have a problem with excessive population growth because of the harm that it is doing to our society and environment, not because migrants are less worthy people.

<To obtain zero net migration, the Australian Government would need to:

1. Set the skilled permanent entry to zero because the loss of Australian citizens is very small. No movement would be permitted onshore to a permanent skilled visa....>

Lie. According to Fact Sheet 5 from the Immigration Department, permanent departures of Australian citizens in 2012/2013 amounted to 91,737 people. Of these, 43,423 were Australian born, and the rest were Australian citizens born overseas. Ample numbers for spouses and other family members, skilled migrants who are genuinely needed (not because employers prefer migrants, especially on temporary visas, or don't want to train Australians), and even some refugees.

https://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/05emigration.htm

The infrastructure and other costs of a bigger population far outweigh the financial benefits of letting our universities run an immigration scam. Too bad if foreign students fall back to traditional numbers and some universities have to close. Nor is the Trans-Tasman agreement sacred if the population flows are one-sided.

You still haven't come clean on whether your public relations firm is being paid to attack us.

"Whose bread I eat, his song I sing."
Posted by Divergence, Saturday, 2 August 2014 2:41:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malcolm King, I am not a "depopulationist".
I am a "deimmigrationist".

I actually want Australians to have *large* families, as birth order studies show later born children to be more creative risk-takers.

I also believe children with siblings benefit from those relationships.
There are always other children around to play and learn with.

A nation of only-children would be as much a social nightmare as a nation of 6000+ ethnic groups (that's 36 million potential conflicts).
Posted by Shockadelic, Saturday, 2 August 2014 8:22:02 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence

I think Paddy is now accepting of the fact that immigration does little to improve our economy, it does little to improve our culture, and it only slightly reduces the average age in Australia, while greatly adding to the total population.

And of course immigration does absolutely nothing to improve our natural environment, while it increases the consumption of our finite natural resources.

The only query Paddy has is the education level of the average immigrant.

It is interesting that you mentioned some universities would have to close if immigration is reduced.

Possibly true, but Australians has been subsidising and pampering the universities for quite some time now, while these universities are renowned for their mediocre teaching and research.

Indeed, the ANU vice-chancellor has recently given Australian universities a "B minus" for quality.

He also said "Our universities are huge by world standards. This is bad for the quality of the education we provide to our young people and bad for the quality of research,"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-30/anu-vice-chancellor-ian-young-delivers-damning-uni-report-card/5635964

So the universities are already too big, and if immigration was expanded even further and more foreign students brought in, it would only make the universities worse (and the ANU vice-chancellor would have to give the universities a "C minus" for quality).

But, if immigration was reduced or stopped, the universities would probably have reduced numbers of foreign students, and this should actually improve the quality of our universities, and the students would be better off.

So a reduction in immigration would be better for foregin students, as well as better for everyone else (except perhaps the 1%).
Posted by Incomuicardo, Sunday, 3 August 2014 9:12:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My apologies to you Shocka. Anyone who knows about the Sulloway thesis must be on the ball.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Sunday, 3 August 2014 1:12:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In 2012-13, Australia accepted about 200,000 permanent migrants, of which roughly 125,000 were skilled. In the 1980s the great majority of Australia's migrants were family migrants. Since the late 1990s and especially since 2005, Australia has accepted more skilled than family migrants.

While the 2006 Productivity Commission report conducted some basic modeling on the effects of migration, it did so looking back to the previous 20 years when we had low skilled migration. The PC found that migration had a mild positive economic correlation.

It stated back then, before the influx of targeted skilled workers, that the annual flow of migrants was small relative to the stock of workers and population. “…migrants are not very different in relevant respects from the Australian-born population and, over time, the differences become smaller.”

From 2005, the proportion has been roughly two-thirds skilled and one-third family. Indeed, contrary to many of the post on OLO by the depopulationists, Australia has one of the lowest unemployment rates for migrants in the OECD.

It is one of only three OECD countries where migrants' unemployment rates are virtually the same as for the locally born. Skilled migrants take up to three years to settle and then make substantial contributions to the economy through taxation, consumption, revenue generation and even employment.

Migrants have consistently had higher average skill levels than the Australian-born population. Since the late 1990s, migrants have been more highly educated, with a greater proportion of recent migrants having qualifications at the postgraduate, bachelor degree and diploma level.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Sunday, 3 August 2014 2:30:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Skilled migrants help our economy grow. They are younger, likelier to be in work and better educated than the average Australian, and thus boost participation, productivity and population. Skilled migrants today meet strict criteria related to in-demand occupations, skills and English. Reforms during the past five years have tightened eligibility to the point where Australia now accepts only the best and brightest.

In 2011-12, seven of the top 10 permanent migration source countries were Asian and India became our largest source of permanent migrants for the first time. This immigration trend is deepening our economic engagement with the fastest growing region in the world. The SPA/SPP aim to sever that connection.

Divergence and the SPA/SPP look at the world in terms of systems and measurement. They have assumed the high moral ground by saying that science is on their side. But this ignores the fact that science, by definition, doesn’t supply value judgments.

Science provides no justification for or against a particular policy. What we have here is a battle of underlying value judgments. When Divergence and others ask what positive things humanity has done, and refer to a record of wastage and destruction, remember that they don’t regard human life as a positive value.

When Dick Smith and Flightcentre boss Graeme Turner, the funders of the anti-people movement speak at the national press club, they will have an opportunity to go in to more detail about the sociobiological roots of their extremist philosophy.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Sunday, 3 August 2014 2:38:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic,

Large families are not a problem in Australia from a population point of view. The overall fertility rate has been slightly below replacement level since 1976, so the relatively few large families are balanced by lots of people who don’t have children or only have one. I am sceptical about whether large families produce more creative people. There are many reports in the literature showing a negative correlation between large family size and/or high birth order and high educational performance, although there is dispute about the relative contributions and the causes. The negative correlation held even when the researchers controlled for family income, parental age, and other factors.

http://ftp.iza.org/dp1713.pdf

“In contrast, we find very large and robust effects of birth order on child education. To get a sense of the magnitude of these effects, the difference in educational attainment between the first child and the fifth child in a five-child family is roughly equal to the difference between Black and White educational attainment calculated from the 2000 census [in the US]. We augment the education results by using earnings, whether full-time employed, and whether had a birth as a teenager as additional outcome variables. We also find strong evidence for birth order effects with these other outcomes, particularly for women.”

http://www.econ.ucla.edu/people/papers/Black/Black493.pdf

Your real concern ought to be that the policies promoted by people like Malcolm King are leading to the crowding out of fertility in the existing population, so that people become increasingly unwilling to even replace themselves. See these maps for a number of European and East Asian countries that show a strong negative correlation between population density and fertility rates.

http://jaymans.wordpress.com/2012/08/23/another-tale-of-two-maps
Posted by Divergence, Sunday, 3 August 2014 2:46:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paddy King,

The concept that immigrants “help the economy grow” is just immigration propaganda and misinformation.

Do you believe in propaganda and misinformation?

From the research report “Economic Impacts of Migration and Population Growth” report produced by the Productivity Commission

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

“However, the Commission considers it unlikely that migration will have a substantial impact on income per capita and productivity because:
– the annual flow of migrants is small relative to the stock of workers and population
– migrants are not very different in relevant respects from the Australian-born population and, over time, the differences become smaller.”

So income per capita and productivity remains the same, but population grows.

Not good, not good.

Unless you are likely to financially gain from an increase in consumption because of an increase in population.

But the bad news there is that the increase in consumption is only temporary, because resources inevitably run out.

So the 1% can gain financially now, but not later on.
Posted by Incomuicardo, Sunday, 3 August 2014 3:21:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paddy,

It is not anti-human or racist to object to an airplane being overloaded, even if the last lot of people to get on board are foreigners or black people. Scientific or engineering knowledge has policy implications. You are ignoring the evidence of serious problems on a whole host of environmental fronts, both globally and here in Australia. I won’t list them or the links once again. Even if some problems turn out to be exaggerated or have good technological solutions, there will be plenty of others to do us in. It is not just a question of unproductive crops as in the 1960s, which was largely solved by the Green Revolution. Our agricultural productivity can really tank without cheap oil and phosphate, or if some of the nastier possibilities from climate change come to pass. Eroding our safety margins with high population and economic growth is foolish in the extreme and possibly treasonable.

If all that skilled migration is so beneficial to the economy, you need to explain why GDP per capita has been fairly stagnant since 2006. It was growing much faster in the previous 20 years.

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/03/australian-gdp-in-detail-2/

Skilled migrants bring family members who aren’t skilled with them, and all compete with existing residents. There are also claims that the skilled list is being gamed for the sake of the universities.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/accountant-glut-prompts-skilledmigrant-list-rethink/story-e6frgcjx-1226812384269

According to Roy Morgan Research, real unemployment is now 10.6% and underemployment is 9.5%. Unlike you, I believe that a nation state and its elite have an obligation to look after its citizens and permanent residents, not just the other way around.

Even if there were a modest gain to ordinary people (and I don’t think that there is), it would be more than soaked up by higher housing costs and balanced by more misery from crowding and congestion. The median house price in Sydney has now passed $800,000. The demographer Joel Kotkin points out that the vast majority of people around the world prefer single family housing with some privacy and a back yard. High density is also poison for fertility rates.

http://www.joelkotkin.com/content/00806-city-leaders-are-love-density-most-city-dwellers-disagree
Posted by Divergence, Sunday, 3 August 2014 3:31:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
So far there has not been one intelligent, critical article of Ms Wilshire’s article. This is extraordinary as it demolishes the facile anti-immigration policies of the SPA/SPP (same thing).

The SPA/SPP live in the world of Camelot, of runes, where divination and the personification of data to “prove” an ideological point coupled with radical assertions of population growth and rising sea levels - to name just a few - have produced “media facts”.

These “media facts” congregate and become “proofs” for a radical vision of a dystopian future. In fact, much of their evidence comes from News Corp newspapers, the ‘masters of media facts’, whom they loath. Their Facebook pages are testament to racist hate language against minorities in Australia.

In fact, when they encounter citations and arguments, such as those I’ve listed above, or throughout the articles I or others have written on OLO and elsewhere, they duck, weave or ignore them. Or they become highly selective in copying and pasting quotations. Note Divergence has suddenly dropped her obsession with the 2006 PC report.

The SPP/SPA - supported by radical anti-immigration forces in America - want to turn establish trade barriers – a new Fortress Australia - and reduce Australia’s population to between 7-12 million by 2050. While most of the anti-people lobby are IT specialists who think the Cultural Revolution involved a lot of dancing, their fear campaigns of a Malthusian world a-brim with ravenous people (usually Africans and Chinese), is redolent of Soylent Green or ZPG.

Much of the realpolitik of their campaigns involves protesting against alternative power sources such as windfarms, building affordable apartments for young people in our cities and inner suburbs, and appropriating nature as a an anvil to try pulverize criticism.

I have alerted my contacts in the Canberra press gallery to ask Smith and Turner why the SPA is using tax payers membership fees to run political campaigns for the SPP and what exactly is the relationship between these anti-immigrant groups and NumbersUSA and the Social Contract.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Sunday, 3 August 2014 3:51:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Sulloway isn't the only voice in that choir, Paddy.

Even if you refute his findings, anecdotal observation/common sense alone would indicate children with siblings will have a more "robust" psychosocial development.

They aren't growing up *alone* in a world of adults.

They must deal with the simultaneous development of *other* children, with different personalities/temperaments/interests/skills.

They learn to communicate, share and play with, have disputes with and care for other children.

The time to do this in school is minimal and comes only after 5-6 years of home life.
The home life of a sibling do not revolve around him or her *exclusively*.

This will better prepare them for real life as an adult, where they must live and work with many different people.

"now accepts only the best and brightest"

In the skilled category, maybe.
Not the *other* third.
Why do we need them?

"This immigration trend is deepening our economic engagement with the fastest growing region in the world"

Is it? How?
"Asia" isn't a "region" economically or culturally.
It is many different, unrelated social systems.

Who cares who's "fastest" growing?
Focusing there means competing with many other wolves salivating over the same lamb.

Why not focus on South America or Eastern Europe instead?
They also offer "opportunities" and their people are more closely related to us, making "connections" much easier and causing less noticeable demographic change here.

Divergence, from your link: "there is a trade off between child quantity and ‘quality’ (Becker, 1960; Becker and Lewis, 1973), where child ‘quality’ is proxied by educational outcomes"

And education is all that matters, right?

Some of the world's most famous movers and shakers had little or no education or their field of mastery in no way benefited from it.

"Your real concern ought to be that the policies promoted by people like Malcolm King are leading to the crowding out of fertility in the existing population"

I am concerned about both internal and external impacts.

But we can't have many more native births while the immigration avalanche continues.
That must stop first.
Posted by Shockadelic, Sunday, 3 August 2014 5:49:41 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paddy King

I was a little surprised that the author believes immigration will benefit developed countries, such as many of the countries in the G20.

For example, there is a growing school of thought that developed economies really don’t gain much by increasing their trade.

Such as detailed in the article “The Trade Delusion” by Adair Turner.

http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/adair-turner-explains-why-more-trade-may-no-longer-mean-more-growth

In his article, Adair Turner says that developed economies gain most by increasing their productivity, and not by increasing their trade.

“Rising productivity does not require relentlessly increasing trade intensity.”

The points he makes in his article are very plausible, but unfortunately for supporters of immigration and overpopulation, the Productivity Commission found that immigration has minimal effect on increasing the country’s productivity.

Indeed, improvements to productivity often mean reducing the workforce, and not increasing it.

So no matter how the situation is looked at, immigration is now a major liability.
Posted by Incomuicardo, Sunday, 3 August 2014 7:32:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Much if not all the over population alrmism and spruiking has nothing to do with science but all to do with beliefs http://www.pop.org/projects/debunk-overpopulation-myth

Prof Ian Goldin of Oxford University published an excellent book 'Exceptional People', based upon research, regarding migration, population and human development http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/director-exceptionalpeople

According to Goldin migration is one of the most effective human development strategies via remittances, community links etc., and as populations stabilise and age, Africa will become the most important source continent.

I suppose SPA/SPP, like mainstream media, would prefer to ignore formal population and immigration research in favour of Dr. Bob Birrell and/or Katherine Betts, the former being 'Australia's best demographer' (according to Paul Ehrlich's mate Bob Carr). Meanwhile even Liberal Party types joke about Birrell, 'he's never seen an immigrant he doesn't like', but he never finds anything negative about Anglo Irish Saxon types?
Posted by Andras Smith, Sunday, 3 August 2014 9:24:21 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andras Smith

All that website does is run a few propaganda videos saying that the world isn’t overpopulated, just the cities.

And if the people in the cities were spread over the countryside, then the world would not be overpopulated.

Like “duh”, I would never have thought of that.

So we could bring in immigrants, and give them a chipping hoe and a few acres of land in the countryside, and tell them to start a farm.

That way we could overcome the overpopulation problem in places such as Brisbane, Sydney, Melbourne and now Perth.

But unfortunately agriculture in rural areas is shedding jobs as agriculture becomes more mechanised.

And manufacturing in Australia seems to be either shedding jobs or closing up shop entirely.

That leaves what to employ all the immigrants and eliminate the overpopulation of the cities?
Posted by Incomuicardo, Monday, 4 August 2014 8:50:01 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andras Smith, *Human society* "has nothing to do with science"

Science is about chemicals and equations.

Humans are not "scientific".

They are tribal, independent, territorial, exploring, greedy, giving, sensous, repressed, authoritarian, rebellious, creative, destructive, jovial, serious.

Humans are insane.
Human societies are forms of shared madness.
They will never be "scientific".

"never finds anything negative about Anglo Irish Saxon types"

It wouldn't matter if you did.

They aren't coming into the country from elsewhere, they are *born* here.
Unless you're proposing to kill White babies, there's not much you can do about that.

You *can* control who enters the country from *outside*.
That's why there's a debate about it.
Posted by Shockadelic, Monday, 4 August 2014 10:44:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The one thing we have plenty of is space!
And what we need is high tech transformation, given that is the only high wages or truly viable future that beckons.
Other than that, one has to completely agree with Dane!
Simple fact is, we are not an economy; but it is the economy stupid!
And a time to thoroughly rejig it, so it works for us, and we are no longer slaves to it, and or, the tiny minority that now does reap any actual benefit!
There is absolutely nothing to fear here; given, as those on the lowest rung of the socioeconomic ladder take a couple of steps up, they only ever force those currently occupying said rungs immediately above, to take a step or two up themselves!
Ditto the rest of the ladder, which then performs like dominoes in reverse!
We are an economy in decline and approaching peak minerals; and indeed, at the end of any of any still salable sovereign wealth.
We can go on as present, with foreign debt mounting and or cleverly disguised as foreign capital, and just continuing to shrink/contract!
All while growing an exponentially mounting foreign debt, and all the burdens it then also creates.
Like a 30% premium, on us alone, on all our foreign purchases, or indeed at the checkout, or payment terminal!
Or worse, double the usual bank fees and charges of comparable countries!
One thing is certain, doing what you've always done, will only ever get you what you've always got!
No need to repeat those, hit the poor hardest actions, that created the great depression!
But rather, just those things that created a postwar period of UNIVERSAL unprecedented prosperity.
Some might argue it was the war, or the then unavoidable social credit, (internal debt raising) it demanded of us and many other nations!
Well then, if internalized debt can do just that, lets have more of it, as opposed to a now unrepayable exponentially expanding foreign debt burden, that can only ever enslave us all!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Monday, 4 August 2014 10:50:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malcolm 'Paddy' King

You dismiss the cogent arguments that have been put to you by Divergence and Incommunicado. Why? Are you incapable of following a rational line of thought? They have provided substantial evidence that high immigration does not benefit the host country overall in that it leads to overpopulation at considerable environmental cost.

Thus I have to concur with the statement: 'Eroding our safety margins with high population and economic growth is foolish in the extreme and possibly treasonable.'

Your method of argument is similar to those denying climate change. Cherry pick the data and ignore the evidence (even if overwhelming) that you don't like.

You may libel SPA and SPP (who are quite separate thank you) all you like with your mates in the Press Gallery but hopefully they are intelligent enough to weigh up the evidence on both sides and determine that you are nothing more than an apologist for big business and developers who want to drive down wages and trash the countryside in the process.
Posted by popnperish, Monday, 4 August 2014 10:58:15 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“I attended the writing workshops sponsored by the Social Contract in 2010 and 2011 in Washington and while they were a bit right wing for me … they nevertheless had a lot to offer.” Popnperish, OLO July 4, 2013 - and she's the head of the SPA.

This environment/antipopulationist phase is part of a historical sociobiological movement to cut population, which goes back to the 1920s and the 1930s. Any one who has studied population dynamics recognizes these iterations have one common denominator and that is attacking the poorest of the poor. The last century was full of ‘slashing’.

There's no doubt that at specific times and places, industry has wrought large-scale environmental damage. But this is not the thrust of the SPA/SPP (same thing). They are targeting migrants but that is only the thin edge of the wedge.

According to them, by being human one is complicit in an incredible array of damage, pollutants, consumption, etc. It's an unsubstantiated guilt trip, which has no logical or empirical foundation as evidenced by Divergence and her cackling enabler Incommunicado.

I got bored with Divergence’s obsessive quoting of the 2006 PC and unfortunately had to point her nose in the unruly fact that the report was not about the economic worth of people. It also looked back at a period of time when we had high family reunions.

Think for just one moment on the kind of mentality that posits that a migrant’s worth can be measured by what they achieve solely in economic terms. Base and repulsive.

All the best at the NPC.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Monday, 4 August 2014 1:43:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You didn't point me to anything, Paddy. I have never believed that a migrant's worth is solely economic, but you and others have tried to convince us that there are big economic benefits from mass migration, and this needs to be refuted. The 2006 Productivity Commission report actually modelled a doubling of the skilled migrant intake. They found a per capita benefit of less than $400, almost entirely distributed to the owners of capital and the migrants themselves. They also found that the rest of the population would be worse off due to wage depression. A number of reports from overseas have also found small benefits and negative effects on employment of existing residents from mass migration, such as the House of Lords report in the UK

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

The US is actually a good test case for your ideas, as it had very low immigration from 1921-1965 and high immigration afterwards, both skilled and unskilled. These graphs show that real wages for most American men are lower than in 1979

http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4c-change-real-hourly-wages/

Wages stopped rising with productivity in 1973

http://www.stateofworkingamerica.org/chart/swa-wages-figure-4u-change-total-economy/

Essentially all of the benefits of economic growth have gone to the folk at the top. Other aspects of globalisation apart from mass migration have had an impact, but mass migration is an important factor. See this article by Prof. George Borjas (Economics, Harvard), one of the authors of the 1997 Academy of Sciences report on immigration.

http://www.cis.org/immigration-and-the-american-worker-review-academic-literature

I don't have a problem with doing foreigners a good turn, but not if it involves walking over my fellow citizens or making environmental problems worse with a bigger population. If population doesn't matter, only per capita consumption, you need to explain why China is the biggest emitter of greenhouse gases in the world, even excluding production for export, and consumes twice as much meat as the US.
Posted by Divergence, Monday, 4 August 2014 2:32:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What many don't understand is that if the zero population growthers had their way, we would need to be in a totalitarian society, and Australian citizens (born and bred) like permanent residents, will need to apply for a resident return visa..... to maintain lower population levels (conversely as Australia withdraws from visa and international treaties, many Australians would be forced to return home, thus increasing population)

While Australians prefer to hear what they want to hear from the likes of SPP/SPA, Dick Smith, Graeme Turner, Bob Birrell et al vs expert panels which see the bigger picture, they are fed alarmist headline numbers.

However, i.e. it's not about how many, but it's how we manage population, and we are doing far better than the Malthus claimed we could.

One of the best centres for research into migration, population, fertility, health, education etc. internationally is the Oxford Martin School of Oxford University.

Here is the link to a panel discussion and summary "Is the Planet Full?" http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/201404IsThePlanetFull (there is more scientific and empirical research used in a short discussion than Birrell's CPUR, John Tanton/TSCP, FAIR, CIS, SPA/SPP etc. have ever used)

Says a lot about Australians when they, and especially mainstream media and politicians, prefer to follow subjective views and 'research' of ageing white middle class men', with some social baggage from the white Australia period apparent (as opposed to doing real research and discussing all aspects, that may ).

Even worse are younger generations whom are 'right on' e.g researchers/journalists, who although highly educated with supposed analytical skills, fall hook line and sinker for the SPP/SPA's John Tanton messages whether the Science Show, Late Night Live etc. on RN, ABC tv, MacroBusiness etc.. (while media and politics are still mostly mono cultural in Oz)

This confirms Prof Hans Roslings research on developing world fertility rates, westerners will assume the high end figure, when in fact it is already lower, what gives?

Surely even in Australia highly educated middle class liberals and progressives would not hold negative stereotypes about people in the developing world and fertilty?
Posted by Andras Smith, Monday, 4 August 2014 6:47:26 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andras Smith

I did have a quite chuckle over this.

"Also key are connectivity and innovation. And the issue of short-termism is absolutely central. We must break free of our myopia both as societies and individuals."

http://www.oxfordmartin.ox.ac.uk/news/201404IsThePlanetFull

The panel seems to think that science will provide the answers to overpopulation, but science hasn't yet.

Many scientists are just as bad as politicians, and in fact about 50% of scientists in the world are involved in manufacturing weapons for the arms industry, and scientists also developed the power stations that are spewing out CO2, and are fully behind manufacturing all the gizmos that fill our consumerist society.

Most scientists and academics will go to wherever the research dollars are. They are some of the most short-term, self-centered and corruptible of people, and I wouldn't be relying on scientists for much at all.

There are two ways to create economic growth, “intensive growth” and “extensive growth”.

"An increase in growth caused by more efficient use of inputs is referred to as intensive growth. GDP growth caused only by increases in inputs such as capital, population or territory is called extensive growth."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_growth

Our treasurer and various economists claim that Australia had economic growth last year, but most of this was “extensive growth” by increasing the population.

It is also the most short term and unsustainable way of creating economic growth.
Posted by Incomuicardo, Monday, 4 August 2014 7:38:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What else don't you know about science and research?

Preferring religious types of belief and prejudices using a facade of 'science' to prove biases, like neo cons pick up on detail, take it out of context, then extrapolate..... in attempt to discredit people with real expertise.

Glaring ignorance.

Science does not claim to be able to understand and explain everything, and is about asking questions, finding correlations, testing and replicating, ongoing..... it's often 'grey'.

This is opposed to those who think they know 'science' via their beliefs or biases whether Malthus, Ehrlich, John Tanton, Bob Birrell et al who throw around distorted, unrelated and confusing headline data showing neither correlation nor empirical evidence, which then shows 'foreigners' in a negative light, 'black and white' get it? :)

I'd suggest keeping your population religious beliefs to Andrew Bolt, ACA, Alan Jones etc. or maybe joining the Christian Scientists or Scientology.
Posted by Andras Smith, Monday, 4 August 2014 8:06:32 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andras Smith

Here is a science website that uses no people.

“There is no human editor behind (e) Science News; it is powered by the (e) news engine, a fully automated artificial intelligence.”

http://esciencenews.com/

So much for science creating employment.

Here is an article where they recently asked a number of academics and economists how to create employment, and basically no one had a clue.

http://theconversation.com/employment-policy-and-job-creation-some-practical-solutions-29893

None of them mentioned sustainability or the impending “overshoot” in Australia because we are extracting resources faster than nature can replenish.

Scientists can develop some new jet fighter or plasm screen for a mobile, but can’t answer how to employ on a sustainable basis all the immigrants flooding into the country.
Posted by Incomuicardo, Monday, 4 August 2014 8:45:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malcolm 'Paddy' King "the kind of mentality that posits that a migrant’s worth can be measured by what they achieve solely in economic terms. Base and repulsive."

Isn't that what the pro-immigration lobby do all the time?

So what is of value from immigration *other than* economic impact?

More takeaway restaurants seems to be the only impact, and that is also "economic".

Anything we want from other cultures we can already access, without psychically transporting millions of people from one side of the planet to the other.

You want recipes, music, films, books, art prints, information of any kind?
All available from online stores and other websites.

Local dressmakers/tailors can make clothes to any specifications you desire or again you can order them online.

This is the Information Age. The whole world is at your fingertips.

Andras Smith "will need to apply for a resident return visa."

What nonsense!
As if CITIZENS would have to "apply" to enter their own country.
They are not "leaving" Australia, they are on vacation.

"as Australia withdraws from visa and international treaties, many Australians would be forced to return home, thus increasing population"

Even if this were true, it would be a temporary stage.

This debate is not about tourism.

There are a million Australians now living abroad.
That's the equivalent of about 8 years of current intake.
Which would itself stop.

You propose *never* stopping immigration.

Which is more ludicrous?
The return of 1 million Australians or the intake of an *infinite* number of others?
Posted by Shockadelic, Monday, 4 August 2014 9:31:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
More BS from the flat earth society, who is whom?

You're very good at telling us what you don't want, but you cannot tell us what your actual working policies would be and how would you implement them? Very coy, and very courageous hiding behind monikers.....

Which one of you behind these monikers is Mark O'Connor, William Bourke or any one of the SPP/SPA cult of how to sustain the status quo, demonise non Europeans and further the interests of the wealthy 'skipocracy'?

You show your true colours as SPP/SPA cannot produce any empirical evidence and rely upon distortion of data, presentation of misconstrued conclusions or findings, and deflect attention from this fact by attacking good research, and demonising those with whom you disagree, or have the gall to make up their own minds.

It's all neo con tactics, but even many neo cons now run a mile from the John Tanton's opaque network (which is directly linked to Birrell, Betts, Bob Carr's SPA and SPP, plus Kelvin Thomson's friends at Progressives for Immigration Reform PFIR in the US) whose other front FAIR has been blocking immigration reform in the USA, irrespective of whether Democrat or GOP initiatives.

Why is the GOP keeping well away from these types, apart from the obvious committed 'beliefs and attitudes' about non European 'immigrants' (not unlike those on the hard right whom John McCain describe as 'lemmings in suicide vests')?

Because your game is already lost, as the GOP realised, 'hang on, we're being encouraged to attack our own future constituency?!'

What is this constitency? Well it's neither WASPish nor Irish ..... and ditto in Oz, monocultural politicians (and business etc.) who ignore NESBs, immigrants etc. do so at their own peril..... i.e. become unelectable.
Posted by Andras Smith, Monday, 4 August 2014 11:19:06 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Lets play a little game together. Lets call it 'Get the Migrant'. Lets suggest that Divergence and the SPA/SPP (same thing) are right and migrants only contribute a small positive gain to the economy. We won't argue the toss about the data fed in to these models or the hypothesis behind them, which can produce wildly varying results.

If that's the case, then the four million migrants (lets not disseminate between skilled and unskilled or their families, who according to the SPA/SPP posters here, a re a 'shocking drain' on an economy producing $1.7 trillion GDP pa) from 1945-2005 (approx), have also been a yoke around the necks of the economy.

Lets just have a look at that: the Ord River scheme, the Snowy Mts Hydro, Kimberly mines, Darwin to Adelaide rail, the Australian car industry (as it was then), the rise of migrant small businesses and trade as well as a large section of our national agriculture and construction industry, was and is comprised by migrants from that cohort.

Yet according to the SPA/SPP, all of that has been a zero sum game. Why? Because those migrants consumed what they saved and bought (food, houses, etc). So their consumption destroyed the public utility of their labour and skills. So according to Divergence, Goldie, Bourke, Smith and Turner, the measure of a person's worth is how little they consume - not what they create. Which was trillions of dollars in labour/infrastructure.

Continued.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 9:45:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Does the curse of 'migrant consumership' also pass to their second and third generations; their well educated children? Of course. Because once you shackle being human with consumption, there's no escape is there? It's a deterministic chain of cause and effect which condemns migrants the moment they step foot on Australia.

But if that's true, how do 'we' escape the same cruel fate because we're all immigrants? You do it by starting a political party that jabbers on about the importance of the environment - without having an environmental record - and which privileges white Australia. Of course you have half a dozen name changes until you hit on the term 'sustainable' and voila!

Now in a week or so's time Dick Smith and Graeme Turner, the money behind the SPP, are going to front the National Press Club without any stand alone research. They'll wave the 2006 PC and show some graphs and call for Fortress Australia. How is this likely to go down with the press? Half will smile benignly as you would an idiot child and the other half will tear Smith and Turner's throats out.
Posted by Malcolm 'Paddy' King, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 9:59:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Malcom King,

I’d like to know what you think would be a satisfactory number for Australia’s population.

I thinks there are two things the public can never afford to happen.

1/ The workforce can never afford an oversupply of labour. If this happens, workers will lose their value, their wages and working conditions are 100% likely to drop, the middle class is eliminated, and it can easily produce the “working poor”, with only the 1% making much money.

2/ There should not be an undersupply of housing. It this happens, housing costs go up, and someone will have to work most of their lives to pay for a roof over their heads, and often the standard of housing becomes poor quality housing in suburban jungles.

But, OH NO.

Australia now has an oversupply of labour with 740,000 looking for work (not to mention the underemployed), and an undersupply of houses, (and house prices are some of the highest in the world).

So it definitely looks like Australia is well and truely overpopulated, with about 60% of population growth now coming from immigration.

If the present system continues, immigrants will have no future in Australia, much like everyone else.
Posted by Incomuicardo, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 10:53:43 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andras Smith, I have nothing to do with SPP and Shockadelic is not a "moniker".
It's my real name.

"as the GOP realised, 'hang on, we're being encouraged to attack our own future constituency?!'"

You said it!
That's why they're "keeping well away from these types".

It has nothing to do with who's right, honest or the best interests of America.

It is pure self-interest by the party, who must maintain their power no matter what.
They care about votes, not voters.

"monocultural politicians who ignore NESBs, immigrants etc."

You're presuming ALL these people are pro-immigration, just because they're immigrants themselves.

Politicians who ignore no-hyphen-required-Australians do so at their own peril.

One Nation got a million votes.
The next incarnation will get more.
And the one after more still.

Because the more extreme this multi nonsense becomes, the more Australians will be *sick to death* of it.

The furthering of your "cause" will actually destroy it.

Malcolm 'Paddy' King "the Australian car industry (as it was then)"

Yes, that was then and this is now.

We have a labour surplus (700,000 unemployed).
We barely survived the GFC.
We have almost no manufacturing (a traditional foot in the door for immigrants) left.

"we're all immigrants"

No, a quarter of the population are.
In the 1940s it was only 10%.

Of the quarter that are foreign, about half are easily-absorbable Europeans (our ethnic kin).

So the ignore-at-our-peril crowd is about 13% of the population?

Oooh, I'm scared!
Posted by Shockadelic, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 12:22:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Good post, Shockadelic

It is easy to show an economic benefit from migration if you assume full employment, and that was the case in Australia in the past. The population was also a lot smaller, so there was less pressure on the environment. If you accept the concept of an optimum population (at a given level of technology), there can be too few people as well as too many. From the Roy Morgan figures, however, 20% of our working age population is now unemployed or underemployed. Different world.

Andras Smith (who hasn't denied that he is a migration agent) wants to discredit all the economists and demographers (and ignore the natural scientists) who don't agree with him. Harvard University is hardly in the habit of employing cranks, and that would also be an unfair description of the very eminent British economists who contributed to the 2008 House of Lords report on immigration.

The Republican Party (GOP) in the US is caught in a bind. This has little to do with Latino votes. The Latinos tend to be fairly poor and overwhelmingly vote for the Democratic Party. They will continue to do so. The GOP can never offer them as much. The GOP base want immigration restriction. The graphs that I linked to in my previous post show that the vast majority of Americans haven't benefitted from globalisation or mass migration. The big GOP donors, the Chamber of Commerce types, want more customers and lots of cheap, compliant labour.

It might surprise Malcolm King and Andras, but there are quite a few migrants from both English-speaking and non-English-speaking backgrounds (NESB) in SPA. Migrants are perfectly capable of seeing the problems with the environment, the job market, unaffordable housing, inadequate infrastructure, crowding and congestion, deteriorating urban amenity, etc. As an Iranian scientist remarked to me, "A lot of us come from overpopulated countries. Why would we want to duplicate the overpopulation in Australia?" See this survey after Kevin Rudd's Big Australia gaffe.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/big-australia-vision-goes-down-like-a-lead-balloon-20100803-115g7.html

Nearly half the NESB population surveyed and a majority of everyone else thought that Australia doesn't need more people.
Posted by Divergence, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 1:46:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This discussion is becoming irrelevant because it is a "Business as Usual" proposal.
It just won't work because to insert large numbers of immigrants into
a zero growth economy would force the economy into a major depression permanently.
By the end of this decade people will be pulling up the drawbridge.

If you think the governments attitude to illegal immigrants is tough
now, as they say "You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet !".
Posted by Bazz, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 4:46:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Shockadelic, are you not Mark O'Connor?

Like O'Connor you put words into peoples' mouths..... you people cannot help yourselves can you.... a lie is easier than having to deal with the facts and empirical research....

I'm not a migration agent, but education consultant, and under Oz legislation only registered migration agents managed by DIBP can advise on migration and assist with applications (it's a criminal offence for Australians to advise on or assist with migration unless a registered agent). Not unlike what refugee advoicates find, Australian governments of both left and right have been infected with not only nasty policies, but paranoid themselves about outcomes thus everything is cloaked in secrecy...... Nazis understood that well, although everyone knew something gross and unfair was happening.....

Here's an example of O'Connor's 'diplomatic' and 'informed' responses to a young woman raising questions about Australian's immigration policy on a registered migration agent's blog,

'Work, Longer and Cut Immigration' http://immigrationptyltd.wordpress.com/2011/03/02/%e2%80%9cwork-longer-cut-immigration-labor-mp%e2%80%9d-interesting/ (based on the work of Vic MP Kelvin Thomson, who is part of John Tanton's network via attending PFIR Progressives for Immigration Reform events in the US and cooperating with Bob Birrell)

The discussion was stopped due to O'Connor degrading the debate..... and was successful in stopping any discussion..... yet hardly a great PR for SPP/SPA? Is this simply the arrogance of strong beliefs, or a need for anger management?

Do SPA/SPP sponsors and supporters condone this type or behaviour, or is it seen as justifiable because you have stronger and wackier beliefs than others?

Is O'Connor's behaviour a portent of what one could expect from a SPP/SPA influenced administration, just follow orders in our totalitarian yet sustainable paradise?
Posted by Andras Smith, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 7:06:34 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Whoops, Shockadelic, for what it's worth, Divergence claimed I had not denied being a migration agent....?

I was never asked, and the answer is no.

Again, that shows how the SPA/SPP operate, fact free zones.....

Just to add, Germany of the 1800s...... the Nazis really had to do nothing re. trying to exterminate jews as anti semitism was ingrained via the German churches who complained about euthenasia in the 1930s, but not the treament of the people from the old book... and readily provided the Nazis with lists of those who had converted.....

There is a parallel with John Tanton as he not only accepted money from the Pioneer Fund (researching eugenics) but fraternised often with open anti semites and holocaust deniers

http://imagine2050.newcomm.org/2009/09/13/tanton-network-caught-in-bed-again-with-anti-semites-and-holocaust-deniers/

Further, he obviously saw Australia as fertile ground in the 1960s and 70s, why? Much of the populace, especially older end, had already been softened up and conditioned by the white Australia policy which he admired, and as we know does not take much to get (too) many Australians dribbling at the mouth about race, immigration, etc.

Question, who were Tanton's original cyphers in Australia? Were these Australian academics or politicians studying in the US at the time?
Posted by Andras Smith, Tuesday, 5 August 2014 7:30:24 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Shockadelic, are you not Mark O'Connor?"

No, I already told you that Shockadelic is my real name.

Why don't you do what all the obsessive anti-racist stalkers do and look it up on the electoral roll?

I don't care what O'Connor, SPP, Tanton or anyone else says or does.

I voice my own opinions and that is all.
Posted by Shockadelic, Wednesday, 6 August 2014 12:20:50 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I agree, Bazz. Boosting population when you have looming environmental and resource problems is about as foolish as you can get.

Curious that you never denied being a migration agent all the times that I brought it up before, Andras. Your work as "education consultant" wouldn't involve bringing foreign students to Australian Universities or facilitating their arrival, would it? Asking about a possible conflict of interest is not a smear.

If anyone really is indulging in smears or bringing down the tone of debate, it is you. The Southern Poverty Law Center and similar organisations in the US have hit on a clever tactic (picked up by you) to shut down debate and discredit political opponents -- just smear them as racists, "hate groups", or "haters". You don't even need to point to anything that they have personally said or done that might be interpreted as bigoted in some way. It doesn't even matter if their organisations reject racism or other bigotry in their policies and have migrants, Black people, etc. as members or even on their executives. All that you have to do is establish some tenuous chain of guilt by association, even more tenuous if you are trying to stretch the chain from the US to Australia. (You couldn't even come up with a plausible Australian mastermind,)

If you want a higher tone of debate try addressing the real issues.
Posted by Divergence, Wednesday, 6 August 2014 6:39:07 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
From the lead front page article (by Nick McKenzie and Richard Baker) of today's Sydney Morning Herald, reporting on a cache of leaked Immigration Dept. documents:

"...national security is being compromised by wide-scale visa rorting and migration rackets operating with impunity, including some with links to terrorism or organized crime."

"Secret departmental operations have estimated that as many as nine in 10 skilled migrant visas may be fraudulent, while an internal inquiry into Afghan visa applicants in 2012 assessed that more than 90 percent of cases contained 'fraud of some type' and raised 'people smuggling, identity fraud, suspected child trafficking and national security implications'.

"Also, a 2010 report reveals that immigration investigators had uncovered a Somali people-smuggling cell in Melbourne linked to suspected terrorist Hussein Hashi Farah...

"Another file details a migration crime network involving a facilitator with suspected Pakistan terrorist links along with 'migration agents, employers and education providers who are linked to a significant level of organized fraud and crime'...

"Tens of thousands of immigration fraudsters [are] living freely after being assisted by migration crime networks exploiting weaknesses in working, student, family and humanitarian visa programs, including loopholes that have left the department 'sometimes generating the fraud'.

"The department is 'responsible for granting a record number of student visas to people who may not be considered genuine students as well as granting permanent residence to skilled migration applicants who do not have the appropriate skills being claimed'."

Of course, if the employers really wanted most of the skilled migrants for their skills and not to flood the labour market to ensure a cheap, compliant work force, they would have long since been screaming to high heaven about the fraud.
Posted by Divergence, Thursday, 7 August 2014 10:58:57 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What a coincidence, Dr. Bob Birrell is on a propaganda campaign in Australian mainstream media today:

http://www.theage.com.au/comment/lax-immigration-policy-hurting-australian-job-seekers-20140807-1019tr.html

Familiar tactic, quote headline statistics, then draw any conclusion you want..... sloppy methodology, it's not science, merely a 'thin academic veneer' to demonise 'immigrants' (SPLC).

Other news outlets follow suit:

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/call-for-migration-rort-crackdown-as-data-reveals-foreign-workers-snare-net-job-growth-20140807-3d9ma.html

'Migrants take 95% of jobs!' http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2014/08/morrison-should-abandon-457-loosening/

(MB, self declared as of the left politically, has become particuularly virulent about 'Chinese', 'population growth', 'immigration' etc., especially commenters and now most related is hidden behind a paywall, especially when 'StormFront' posts were turning up.... they should stick to business).

However, Birrell being one John Tanton's main cogs locally and internationally (through his contributions to The Social Contract Press TSCP) plays an important role in Australia nativist matters as the mainstream media 'go to' or 'rent a quote' expert on all things 'immigration' and 'population'.

This means Birrell's and Tanton's TSCP 'research' can be fed to Australian media then transmitted onto mainstream Australia as 'fact', when in fact it's merely matching the 'white Australia' WASPish racial and/or neo colonial attitudes that still lurk below the surface (after all journalist do have critical analysis skills?)

The 'role of honour' in Australian for media and politicians who regurgitate Tanton's philosophy (via Birrell) uncritically (or are happy to 'dog whistle') include: SPP/SPA, Bob Carr, Kelvin Thomson, Fairfax (especially Tim Colebatch), MacroBusiness (Leith van Onselen), News Corp (Bolt, Masanauskas, HigherEd etc.), ABC (Jon Faine, Robyn Williams, 7.30 report etc.) and of 'Current Affairs' tv, and Alan Jones.

This strategy is nothing new, during the 18th and 19th centuries in Germany the churches, media and anti semites transformed perceptions regarding the presence of Jewish communities in the empire as a 'Jewish problem' (even if secular), creating widespread antisemitism so that the Nazis did not need to persuade anybody to collaborate, inform, commit atrocities, or turn a blind eye...... when 'solutions' were implemented.

What is the difference now? There isn't any, keep repeating the plausible facts/lies and people will take it for granted that it is true, it's called classic conditioning, as used by religions and cults....
Posted by Andras Smith, Thursday, 7 August 2014 10:18:48 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andras Smith

The same situation has occurred in the US.

“Government data show that since 2000 all of the net gain in the number of working-age (16 to 65) people holding a job has gone to immigrants (legal and illegal).

The total number of working-age (16 to 65) immigrants (legal and illegal) holding a job increased 5.7 million from the first quarter of 2000 to the first quarter of 2014, while declining 127,000 for natives.”

http://c7.nrostatic.com/sites/default/files/CIS%20Report%20On%20Employment%20Gains%20And%20Losses.pdf

So there appears to be no shortage of jobs in the US, and probably never has been.

Just an oversupply of immigrants taking the jobs.

Seems a weird way of running a country.

In the case of our country, I have no confidence that our governments have a clue of what they are doing.
Posted by Incomuicardo, Thursday, 7 August 2014 11:47:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Andras Smith "that still lurk below the surface"

A self-interested bias favouring one's kin or folk "lurks beneath the surface" of all people, except posturing utopian propagandists.

It lurks beneath Tibetans.
It lurks beneath Palestinians.
It lurks beneath African Americans.

But that's okay.
They're not White.

The anti-racists/multiculturalists try to *invert* their natural bias, turning its archetypal psychic force psychotic, hysterical.
Posted by Shockadelic, Friday, 8 August 2014 11:28:55 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My, my -- Andras' list of villains is getting longer and longer. He might be better advised to try to prove why Bob Birrell is wrong -- lying, according to Andras -- rather than just smearing him.

In any case, the main game is the enormous scandal that has erupted concerning the Immigration Department, which has nothing to do with Bob Birrell, except as a source of comment. A whistleblower leaked many confidential documents on immigration fraud and corruption to the Sydney Morning Herald.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/terror-touches-down-visa-fraud-migration-crime-rampant-immigration-department-files-reveal-20140806-3d8wj.html

Here is a link to some of the original documents

http://www.theage.com.au/national/brokenborders?rand=1407336867393

Enjoy, Andras
Posted by Divergence, Friday, 8 August 2014 11:44:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Divergence

It seems to be similar to free trade.

It reaches a point where more free trade has minimal benefit, and in fact it can cost so much to police free trade that it wipes out any benefits entirely.

For example, trying to stop the dumping of goods into another country becomes impossible to police.

Immigration is another, where too much immigration has minimal benefit, and trying to police immigration becomes impossible.

We have reached that point.
Posted by Incomuicardo, Friday, 8 August 2014 4:00:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Curious that in quickly scrolling down I could not find any mention of how developing countries benefit when we seek out their most skilled immigrants. I would have thought that it was immoral.
I wouldn't repeat all the arguments about excessive immigration. For those of you that want less, write Reduce Immigration on your ballot papers, Federal, State and municipal council. Your vote is perfectly legal and you can then fill in the numbers for your preferred party.
More details at www.reduceimmigration.wordpress.com
Posted by Outrider, Sunday, 10 August 2014 2:46:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Outrider

That is actually a good topic or issue to raise at the G20 meeting. Economically rich countries pilfering trained people from poor countries.

It is the hugely immoral pilfering of resources from poor countries.

The excuse is that taking in trained immigrants from a poor country makes a rich country even richer. But if this is true, then it must also make the poor country even poorer.

Those who favour overpopulation and mass immigration don’t seem to want to mention that.

While countries such as the US spend almost $9000 per person on health spending each year, a country such as Sierra Leone spends about $95.

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/7/5979051/the-ebola-outbreak-in-five-sentences

So a poor country could spend its very limited resources on training a doctor or a nurse, and then a country such as Australia takes that doctor or nurse.
Posted by Incomuicardo, Monday, 11 August 2014 9:18:06 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 9
  7. 10
  8. 11
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy