Mass immigration and multiculturalism - crimes committed by both Liberal and Labor - will be the death of Australia.

Ripped-off…don’t vote.

This issue must come to a head within a few years. The present scenario won't last of plenty of water in the rivers and a seemingly tight job market. Many of the new immigrants won't be able to afford good housing while the existing population struggles with rising costs such as energy. Those of us already here may not see any benefit and some things like Medicare appear doomed to get worse.

A recent ABC item on aged carers on temporary visas from the Pacific islands was an eye opener. They admit the plan is to get permanent residence then bring out family. That will be a kind of multiplier for already high levels of immigration. The backlash will get louder when things get tougher in the next few years. So far few politicians are willing to buck the high immigration consensus.

Taswegian

I doubt that there will be any backlash. Australians don't have what it takes any more. That's why we have the rubbish in Canberra that we do.

Hogwash is the only term that comes to mind for our current immigration policy and big Australia. When we closed the borders as we should have, our economy grew, and unemployment shrank markedly.

Bring more people in? Where will we house them? We already have tent cities reminisant of the Great Depression! How many would come if we showed them the power bills they'd be facing or the rents they'd be paying?

We need a pause, not an endless stream of migrants, many of whom have incompatible cultures and values.

The real issue that needs much higher priority than currently given is the ever-increasing cost of energy and what we can do about it. And the price we now pay for the years where the only game in town was the asinine privatization of publicly owned enterprise and amenity. Another issue the voter had little or no say over.

There are real solutions that are not the renewable hogwash the government trots out. And they come with Sovietized energy solutions and nuclear energy.

And nuclear waste burning molten salt reactors that are so safe, they can be walked away from and allowed to do their thing in complete safety without human control for months or years.

Cost a fraction of conventional reactors to build and what's more can be mass produced for little more than the build costs of big diesels.
Alan B.

Well said Stephen. There's no democracy in this particular decision making. The big end of town that profits from high immigration/population growth has the ear of government and no-one else. What will happen to housing and rental prices as demand increases, goodness knows. Meanwhile, there's ever more encroachment on native habitat meaning other species are being driven to extinction.

Rather than celebrate improved health, education and longevity (hence, sustain higher population for now), just Malthusian population demography and Galtonesque eugenics ideology masquerading as environmental concern which has been around for centuries, especially since the end of the white Australia policy.

Further, we are all immigrants apart from Aboriginals, but what has changed about 'immigrants' in the past two generations that they are now, often viewed, with disgust and induce 'stochastic terrorism' and thy must be stopped?

Quite ironic that Germany is now becoming one of the preeminent immigrant nations in the world, along with EU, while the former champions in the Anglosphere represented by the US, UK and Australia try to turn their backs on the world, giving entrenched inside and outside players advantage.

Demographic fact, Australia's working age passed the demographic sweet spot pre Covid to be followed by lower fertility but via PAYE taxation have to support budgets for more seniors; what do you want exactly tax all pensioners?

https://data.oecd.org/chart/6VJ9

More generally, if immigration and population are accepted as causes of environmental 'hygiene' issues, what is your 'solution'; no one from SPA ever reveals this secret?

More of your baseless accusations of racism, Andras, as if the real issue about immigration weren't the excessively high numbers, dwarfing those of virtually every other developed country and causing serious environmental and social problems. Apart from a relatively few people on the far right, no one objects to a moderate rate of immigration or cares about the race or religion of the migrants, so long as they are good people.

You ignore the damage that us humans are doing to our life support systems on a global level.

http://www.stockholmresilience.org/research/planetary-boundaries/the-nine-planetary-boundaries.html

Every State of the Environment Report here in Australia has shown deterioration, largely due to the demands of more and more people, and the last one was so bad that the government refused to release it before the last election. What do you have against koalas that you want them to be endangered and replaced by wall-to-wall housing? Australia's Genuine Progress Indicator actually peaked in the 1970s, when there were about 15 million of us.

We have the high immigration, not because it is of any benefit to most people here, but because the politicians and their donors benefit from a bigger economic pie, giving them more to skim, inflated property prices, and a cheap, compliant work force that will put up with exploitation. The rest of us get overloaded infrastructure and more competition for jobs, housing, public services, and amenities. Real wages have been stagnant for a long time, while the profit share keeps increasing and sucking up virtually all the gain from greater productivity. How can we possibly be suffering from skill shortages when we have had record high immigration for decades?

http://www.afr.com/politics/australia-s-falling-real-wages-in-eight-charts-20220817-p5bain

Divergence, try harder on credibility inc. sources and presentation, fail; otherwise you are simply promoting your own opinions.

The first source is irrelevant as the article does not make any reference nor correlation with immigration or population, let alone Australia.

The second is a news article from AFR or 9Fairfax (behind paywall), but apparently speaks about decline in real wages (again no correlation made with immigration), hence, does not pass the 'CRAAP' test used for credibility.

Learning tricks from MacroBusiness, NewsCorp, SPA or 'Australia's best demographer' (who in fact was the late Jack Caldwell).

<The first source is irrelevant as the article does not make any reference nor correlation with immigration or population, let alone Australia.>

So why have we passed those planetary boundaries if not for humans and their activities? Who else did it, the Tooth Fairy? Believe it or not, we are affected by what happens on the global level.

I am actually concerned about population growth, not immigration as such, except as a source of population growth. The problems caused by immigration are almost entirely due to the sheer numbers, not because the migrants are bad people.

From the Overview in the latest (2021) State of the Environment Report here in Australia: "Population, climate change and industry each put pressure on our environment. When combined, the threat increases and our environment is damaged, sometimes destroyed."

From the University of Sydney summary: "Nationally, land clearing remains high. Extensive areas were cleared in Queensland and New South Wales over the last five years. Clearing native vegetation is a major cause of habitat loss and fragmentation, and has been implicated in the national listing of most Australia’s threatened species." Why is the land clearing going on, if not to meet human needs? Think of the koalas wiped out for housing estates.

http://www.sydney.edu.au/news-opinion/news/2022/07/19/state-of-the-environment--the-findings.html

In terms of mass migration suppressing wages, you might consider Philip Lowe, the RBA Governor, a credible source:

http://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/immigration-levels-a-factor-in-sluggish-wages-growth-rba-governor-20210708-p587z2.html

Divergence: A 'credible source' is not a non expert person from another field or discipline offering narratives and opinions.

An expert source is generally a peer reviewed article according to the 'CRAAP' test, then broad/deep reading/understanding of multiple sources then presented as a synthesis for credibility.

Demanding or offering a person as a source, without them using any clear evidence, is not credible, especially when credible demographic sources are avoided.... bit like climate and Covid science?

Here is a link to the original paper from Nature on planetary boundaries:

http://www.nature.com/articles/461472a

Do you seriously want to claim that the authors of the government's
State of the Environment Reports are unqualified? If you look at the downloads, you will see a great many references from peer reviewed journals.

Dr. Philip Lowe has a PhD in Economics from MIT and has served as Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia. Hardly unqualified.

Do you mean demographers like Bob Birrell or Katharine Betts? Or the ones whose findings just happen to serve the interests of Big Business, the property developers, the migration industry, and the growth mad politicians?

"Whose bread I eat, his song I sing."

In case you have not noticed in many British cities the British are a minority.
The UK can no longer claim to be a Christian country.
The moslems no longer hide their intention to turn the UK into an Islamic country.
Even a high court judge said recently that Sharia laws will have to be
included into English Law.
Many English towns now look like Pakistani towns and the majority of
children are of Indo or Paki descent.
The most popular name for babies is Mohammad.

It is not just Britain, Germany and France are also in ethnic peril.
In France two churches are attacked every day.
All churches are now fitted with alarm buttons to summon police.
This alarm is now being fitted in many other premises that fear attack.

We could arrange to accept British & other European refugees.

Divergence: Think you need to learn what academic or research credibility is?

It's not just saying someone is qualified and/or there are some articles somewhere; if the latter exists why not present them in synthesis to be challenged?

Katherine Betts like others around Sustainable Population Australia eg. Bob Birrell, contributed articles to TSCP journal of deceased white nationalist John 'passive eugenics' Tanton who like his colleague Ehrlich at ZPG has expertise and interest in insects, not humans (someone better tell SPA's Labor patrons?).

Betts article was the prized interview of Jean 'great replacement' Raspail, who with Renaud Camus, suggested invasion while informing Fox News, Steve Bannon, GOP, UK Tories etc.

From SPLC (the GOP demanded it be shut down because they don't like its reporting and exercising of freedom of speech; snowflakes?):

'The Social Contract Press (TSCP) routinely publishes race-baiting articles penned by white nationalists. The press is a program of U.S. Inc, the foundation created by John Tanton, the racist founder and principal ideologue of the modern nativist movement. TSCP puts an academic veneer of legitimacy over what are essentially racist arguments about the inferiority of today's immigrants.'