Sneekeepete says that we might as well take all of the boat people because "we know we need immigration". Certainly the corporate elite wants mass migration. They benefit heavily from cheap, exploitable labour and from making a killing on urban land speculation. So (indirectly) do their stooges in the media and in Parliament. However, benefits to the population as a whole are something else again. Robert Rowthorn, the Cambridge University economist, wrote in a recent column ((British) Telegraph 2/7/06): "As an academic economist, I have examined many serious studies that have analysed the economic effects of immigration. There is no evidence from any of them that large-scale immigration generates large-scale economic benefits for the existing population as a whole. On the contrary, all the research suggests that the benefits are either close to zero, or negative."

The Productivity Commission report on immigration released last April also found that any per capita economic benefits were negligible, even though they did not consider negative effects on the environment of extra population pressure or on social cohesion, such as those recently reported by Robert Putnam of Harvard. (The Australian Bureau of Statistics in its last two 'Measuring Australia's Progress' reports found that every environmental indicator apart from urban air quality was getting worse.) There is no shortage of workers in Australia, apart from some specialised skills due to lack of training. We all know that the unemployment statistics are lies. Currently 16% of the working population gets all or most of its income from the welfare system as opposed to 3% in the 1960s when there really was full employment.

I accept that there are cultural benefits from diversity on a small scale and would be perfectly happy to support an even larger refugee intake, so long as the regular program was cut to compensate. People on both sides of this argument defeat their own case with personal abuse. Why should I care if someone I consider a traitor calls me a bigot, or vice versa?

Mickijo please do not tease us with the prospect of your becoming a refugee.

And I guess only disingenuine refugees become isolated, stressed and behave badly after prolonged period of incarceration? - so how come most of them have been declared legitimate?

Hey Hedgy...thats a bit mean... name calling with expletive... and trying to hijack the thread into an 'anti Col/Boaz' pogrom!

Never mind. I don't mind a bit of passion in debate. I can't quite see how your post contributed though.

Let me re-iterate. My primary contention is for sound, workable border protection/Immigration policy. Once we sort this out, there will be no need for this debate.

Hedgy..did you read divergences post about how the flood of 490,000 assylum seekers turned up on the UK doorstep ?
Do you see ANY social, cultural or political implications in this ?

One which stands out like dogs balls on a grashopper is the call for an Islamic republic by more 'enthusiastic' elements of the Islamic community. The construction of a MASSIVE mosque capable of holding 40,000 people.. does this kind of thing say nothing to you about social equalibrium, cultural impact or potential communal problems ?

I really don't think many of you diversity proponents have much of a clue about either life or history. Just a tiny example of how the natural human is. The Fayu tribe in Irian Jaya live in small family units, and meet once a year with other units together to work out wives. If they meet in the jungle on the way, they will have a long conversation to establish if they have any common family tie, and if they don't more than likely will kill each other.

Take away all the modern props and decorations and you have 'natural man' Still the same motivations.

The thing which brings OUT those natural primal actions is communal competition and social upheaval.

Hedgy.. would you accept a quota system for assylum seekers ?
if not, will you accept 'open slather' of as many as can reach our shores are all welcome, and if you accept this, do you believe that only a 'few' or many will come ?
If many come, (tens of 1000s) do you see any protential problem ?

please answer these important questions.

Marilyn Shepard

You can rant and rave all you want, but the policies worked. Australians have let pollies known in letters ten feet high that we do not want any more Muslims here.

I fear we are in for a very long election run up with the Tampa and Siev-x being exhumed so early in the piece.
I would imagine that the general population are so fed up with goings on in some of the muslim communities that anyone who expects to raise tears of sympathy for open migration slather would be better off spitting against the wind. An election winner they are not.
Our real sympathies are with our own countrymen and women who are suffering [genuinely] yet another drought.
But then one cannot expect any left winger to spare any consideration for their own people. No merit in it.

Hey you guys.

You can't criticise Marilyn and Hedgehog for intemperate laguage and then use it yourself. Let's all cool down. We are not threatened by a massive influx of green aliens from Mars!

Anyway many of the Tampa asylum seekers were Christians. This should not be such an emotional subject. The vast majority of Australian born Muslims will end up just like the rest of us. Laid back and disliking of authority.

There is a problem of a small minority and unfortunately John Howard is milking that for all his worth making the problem worse rather than allowing a sensible solution to develop.