Leigh

Don't worry about offending - as I hope I have indicated, I don't support high migration because I think it is popular. However, I doubt very much that the decline in the Democrat vote is because we moved away from a zero net migration approach. Firstly, John Coulter was the only Democrat Senator who ever supported such an apporach, and he dedicated himself to getting it adopted as poolicy (as I did to getting it removed). Secondly, he was easily the least electorally successful Democrat Leader until the last election when I relieved him of that particular label. We lost support for a lot of reasons, but it was from a high that appeared after Coulter left, and I don't think it was much to do with anti-migration issues (except perhaps for some broader anti-refugee sentiment in 2001).

Ludwig

I guess I can only say your experiences with most low-immigration advocates is quite different to mine.

Lower immigration numbers were achievable under Keating and early Howard in large part because we were in a recessionary environment, so the demand wasn't there. A big chunk of immigration numbers is, in effect, a market (unfortunately apart from the humanitarian component that low intake folk always promote, where no one has any economic incentive to 'buy')

In regards to why low immigration intake is not socially just, I am referring particularly to enforced separation of families.

In regards to your statement that I am "twisting the argument backwards", I guess it is somewhat consistent if I say that your argument seems the same to me.

Andrew Bartlett originally claimed that mass migration was of significant economic benefit to all of us, not just the folk at the top. This claim is untenable, especially since the recent Productivity Commission report. He also seems to be worried that his earlier statements that asylum claims would remain small in number and overwhelmingly genuine might not hold good, so that it is necessary to dilute the asylum seekers with large numbers of other immigrants so as to not upset the public.

Now it is "social and economic justice". First World elites have undoubtedly done terrible things in the Third World, but the Third World has also benefited immensely from our technology, especially the Green Revolution. If global population growth had stopped in the 1950s, everyone on Earth could have a decent European level quality of life. It is the Third World people themselves who decided to use the Green Revolution gains to "feed more hungry people, rather than feeding hungry people more", as Prince Philip once put it. South Korea and Taiwan show that much better decisions could have been made. These countries are now in the First World. Andrew Bartlett thinks that when you scratch one of us you find a xenophobe, but I think that when you scratch people like him you find someone who really sees Third World people as childlike little brown brothers, who have to be rescued by us, because they are too stupid, feckless and irresponsible to deal with their problems, unable to learn from their mistakes or be held morally responsible as we are held responsible for overconsumption. Without a world government the idea of addressing overpopulation globally is a joke.

Unfortunately it is the people at the bottom in Australia who will pay for Senator Bartlett's social and economic justice. According to economist Lester Thurow 1% population growth requires 12.5% of GNP to be diverted into growth infrastructure. Why, for example, do you think that mental patients and the intellectually disabled have nowhere to go but jail, when the economy is supposedly booming and the tax take is at record levels?

“In regards to why low immigration intake is not socially just, I am referring particularly to enforced separation of families.”

Andrew, I guess what you mean is that if immigration was suddenly greatly lowered, new immigrants who have understood that their families/spouses will follow may find that their loved-ones are refused entry. I share this concern. I think immigration should be lowered as quickly as possible while honouring current family-reunion commitments.

“In regards to your [Ludwig’s] statement that I am "twisting the argument backwards", I guess it is somewhat consistent if I say that your argument seems the same to me.”

Well this doesn’t help the debate at all. In what way do you think I have a twisted argument?? I explained what I meant. I completely fail to understand what you mean.

Your statement; “It just seems excessively selfish to me to say that (virtually) nobody else is allowed to live here, because we already consume too many resources per head” really does imply either a fundamental lack of understanding or of our motives or something worse; a strong disdain for those who think that sustainability takes priority.

But presumably you do support sustainability objectives to some extent. I guess you are in favour of reducing overall usage (and hence average per-capita usage) of non-renewable and potentially renewable resources. I guess you would consider a reduction in resource usage by, say 20% per person to be a really big step forward. But of course if we do manage an amazing feat like that, and the population increases by 25% then we will have gained precisely nothing. We are well and truly on track to increasing population by 25% in the relatively short term, but unless we are forced into it, we won’t reduce overall average per-capita consumption by anywhere near 20% without the most massive effort.

In other words, your beloved high immigration is just going overwhelm practically any gains we make towards sustainability by way of reduced consumption, increased efficiencies, alternative energy sources, etc. Presumably you think there is something twisted about this argument Andrew

Ludwig

I think we're getting off topic from the article, which is more about refugee protection than migration intake.

However, by way of brief response, when people aren't in Australia, they don't just disappear. They are still alive and still consuming resources. If they consume less than they would in Australia, it's usually because they are (a) poorer, or (b) living more efficiently.

Keeping them poor is not a good argument for environmental sustainability except in the crassest terms (and not a good argument for population reduction either for that matter).

Reducing our per capita consumption will help, regardless of how many people are here. Our inadequacies at doing this better should not be used as an excuse to keep the place to ourselves.

Just looking in isolation at the environmental impact of each person here, while ignoring the wider economic and social benefits that migrants can bring is just as blinkered as ignoring environmental impacts of something and only considering the dollar value.

A society with a better functioning economy is usually better placed to improve their environmental performance than one that is struggling with high poverty, unemployment, social breakdown, etc. In Australia's case, a well managed migration program with a reasonable intake helps avoid those negatives.

So how do you explain the excellent economic and environmental performance of Finland, for example, where net immigration per thousand people is only 23% that of Australia and there is very little population growth of any kind (CIA World Factbook)?

I don’t think we are off topic. If we can’t maintain a healthy society, then the last thing we are going to be concerned about is helping refugees. Getting to the nub of the sustainability issue is thus vitally important to Guy Goodwin-Gill’s thread.

“A society with a better functioning economy is usually better placed to improve their environmental performance than one that is struggling with high poverty, unemployment, social breakdown, etc. In Australia's case, a well managed migration program with a reasonable intake helps avoid those negatives.”

Absolutely!! We have total agreement!

So let’s stop critically pressuring our economy by way of continuously exacerbating the ratio between resource demand and supply capability. Continuous population growth is no longer of significant economic advantage when you consider the parameter that really matters – per-capita economic turnover, not total economic growth. It hasn’t been for decades in Australia.

A strong economy helps improve environmental performance. But how silly is it to strive for a strong economy by way of rapid population growth when we all know that more people means more pressure on the environment? An ever-bigger economy certainly doesn’t help our environmental performance. An ever-bigger economy does not equate to an ever-stronger economy. Among the world’s strongest, most stable and least threatened economies are the Scandinavian and western European countries that have no or low population growth. And they have been this way for a long time.

A well-managed migration program is one that is the best compromise between maintaining some refugee intake, a small intake of only the most urgently needed skills and a minimised family reunion category….and reaching a stable population. If those who cared about sustainability in Australia cared about it only, they would be pushing strongly for absolute zero immigration.

What do you say Andrew about the manner in which continuous population growth cancels out, if not completely overwhelms, even really significant per-person reductions in resource consumption and improvements in efficiency, as per my last post? How do you think this is going to affect our economy, society and ability to help refugees?