Calling people racists just because they object to mass immigration and the obvious divisions and security threats it causes is the pathetic weapon of no-argument/no brain morons.

Personally, I don't care if I am actually a racist or not. I don't care what anyone thinks of me or my opinions - particularly anonymous morons I don't know and, thankfully, will never know.

Net Zero emissions need to be dumped, and Net Zero immigration introduced.

Neither of these things will happen under the uniparty, and Australia, like the rest of the West - apart from the U.S - will look like an end of the world movie scene.

Demographers are now saying the birthrate of Australians has reached the point of "no return". The same thing is happening in other white countries. That should please the self-hating whites. On the other hand, these fools are in for a big shock if they think that the non-whites who take over will be kind to them because they did the dirty on their own race. I'm glad that will be out of here by the time the s..t hits the fan.

At the very best, Australia's mass immigration and multiculturalism is based on dangerous naivety. Although evil intent by the political class is more realistic.

Being proud of being tolerant - that's the rest of us - is stupid when it includes tolerance of the intolerant, i.e Islamism and antisemitic mobs on our streets.

Different races, different languages, different values do not work. Parallel societies do not work. Integration and assimilation no longer occurs: hasn't done since the days of post-war immigration of Anglos and Europeans, the people that are now being confused by the Left as the same as the inappropriate sort now flooding the country.

Hi Paul

I mostly agree about the permanent stream. The family reunion part may be a bit generous (I’d support only partners, dependent children and carers having an automatic right of residence), but the emphasis on skills is good. And while the target of 185,000 is higher than it used to be until about 2010, we absorbed similar numbers in the 2010s without too much pressure. I also support our humanitarian migration scheme.

However, net overseas migration has been about double that target, averaging 370,000 in the past 4 years. While there is no technical definition of “mass” migration, and the term is rather hyperbolic, it is not without some justification.

The article points out that much of the surge in immigration in recent years has been long-term temporary arrivals, mostly students. I have no problem in principle with our unis taking overseas students, but I have some concerns about recent trends.

The first is the sheer numbers, which have put pressure on infrastructure and housing (especially rentals). As the article points out, our universities benefit from this trend financially while the wider community bears the costs.

The second is that long-term temporary visas are being used by some as a backdoor entry, either by people who never really came here principally to study, or those who extend their stay by obtaining a succession of “temporary” visas, or those who overstay their visas. I wouldn’t stop people transitioning from temporary to permanent visas – someone who comes here to study, gets an engineering degree and wants to stay would probably be welcome. But temporary migrants transitioning to permanent should meet the same criteria as other applicants for permanent residency.

The third is that these temporary migrants do not pass the same vetting and character checks as permanent arrivals.

This could be fixed fairly and painlessly. By tightening the rules on visa hopping, enforcing the rules on “students” actually studying, identifying over-stayers and sending them home, and perhaps setting caps on future student visa numbers, we could cut net overseas migration while leaving the skilled stream untouched.

I mostly agree about the permanent stream.
Rhian,
Has anyone ever looked at the situation in the countries from which so many "refugees" come to Australia & indeed to all Western Countries ? Are the people in those countries better off for shedding so many of their country men ? Are their economies improving ? Don't they become more peaceful ? Or are these "refugees" not actual refugees ?
Do the countries that send all these refugees still receive international aid ? Shouldn't a slice of such aid go to the host country to help towards the influx of "refugees" ? When will the UN & the IMF actually start doing something realistic to stop theses migrations to the West ? Let Westerners go to these countries & help rebuild them instead of just perpetually fleecing the West ? I suppose if Westerners went there & brought these countries up to a good standard, they'd then be accused of being exploitive Colonialists again ! Or, is the islamisation of the Globe sanctioned by the powers in World politics ?

Indy
To answer your questions:
“Has anyone ever looked at the situation in the countries from which so many "refugees" come to Australia & indeed to all Western Countries?” – yes, countless times in detail
“ Are the people in those countries better off for shedding so many of their country men?” – no but the refugees are better off for getting out
“ Are their economies improving ?” - no
“ Don't they become more peaceful ?” - no
“ Or are these "refugees" not actual refugees?” – Australia’s refugee intake are screened intensively. Those that are accepted are genuine refugees.
“Do the countries that send all these refugees still receive international aid?” – their governments mostly don’t, but charities and international agencies try to help people directly wherever there are humanitarian crises.
“ Shouldn't a slice of such aid go to the host country to help towards the influx of "refugees"?” – refugees in host countries get UN and other international support. Some other international aid is offered to help major host countries – e.g. the EU provides funding to Türkiye, which hosts about 2.5 million refugees.
“ When will the UN & the IMF actually start doing something realistic to stop theses migrations to the West?” – not much they can do. The vast majority of refugees don’t go to “the West” but remain countries near their place of origin in Asia, Africa and South America.