Normally I steer away from the endless droning of 'stop immigration...' eminating from countless vaccuous morons but I'm tired and bored today so here goes.

Shut the hell up.

We don't live in a country, you shortsighted idiots. We live in a world. A big, round, world with all sorts of issues and problems that extend beyond any imaginary, contrived border.

You don't care what plight others are in? Fine, your prerogative. But there are people around who do, so get the hell out of their way so some good can be done and some decency can be instilled into an otherwise greedy, selfish, soulless, greedy (worth saying twice) culture.

Immigration is not an issue. An entire country starving to death, THAT is an issue. And its all a pendulum - the further you push it away from you, the faster and harder it will swing back.

Hear, hear Spendocrat. Phooey to the xenophobic, pull up the drawbridge, I'm alright Jack, anti-immigrationists. A point that seems lost on this set is that almost all of us are, or descend from, relatively recent immigrants. Without its history of immigration, where would Australia be? Without most of us who are here today, is where. Since it is immigration that has made Australia successful, who are these people to say that now is the point where there should be no more of it? And, why? Thankfully, no-one who matters takes any notice of them.

I agree with you, Spendocrat, that the problems of sustainable Australian cities is but a small one compared to world poverty, which could be dealt with pretty effectively if there was a real will to do so. However, I'm sure that you don't think that Australian immigration policies are in themselves any real answer to global poverty, do you? Thought I'd better make that clear before some of the anti-immigration set jump on you.

Not a pendulum, a gate. We should help to solve other countries problems in their own land, not bring them here. The multiracial nirvana that you yearn for is one where, at best, everyone is alive but very few are happy:

"And what is happening to Los Angeles? According to Robert Putnam, Harvard political scientist and author of "Bowling Alone," the trust among people in "this most diverse human habitation in human history" is now at rock bottom, the lowest anywhere he could find.

"In the presence of diversity," said Putnam, "we hunker down. We act like turtles. The effect of diversity is worse than had been imagined. And it's not just that we don't trust people who are not like us. In diverse communities we don't trust people who look like us."

The more people of different races that live in a community, the greater the loss of trust, said Putnam. "They don't trust the local mayor, they don't trust the local paper, they don't trust other people, and they don't trust institutions. ... The only thing there is more of is protest marches and TV watching."

Welcome to the Brave New World our elites are creating for our children, as they consign the America we grew up in to the compost heap of history."

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=52531

Ditto Australia.

I couldn’t believe my ears this evening while watching the 7.30 Report: Melbourne’s water restrictions are set to tighten right up and Bracks is making a big hullabaloo about strict enforcement and application of penalties for offenders, including reducing household water allocation rates down to a trickle for offenders.

And yet not a word about the constantly increasing number of water consumers in that city.

How on earth can apparently intelligent people treat vital issues such as this in such an extraordinarily one-sided manner?

Come-on Steve, at least start suggesting that the population growth factor has to be mitigated somewhat along with water restrictions, or completely forego your credibility on this issue, if you haven’t already.

"We should help to solve other countries problems in their own land, not bring them here".

Agreed online_east. But this is not the issue with immigration, as the refugee component is only a tiny fraction of our intake.

One of the stupidest aspects of our immigration program is the virtual stealing of skilled people from countries that need those skills much more than we do. In fact this is so bad that it more or less cancels out our international aid effort. This is particularly relevant with doctors and nurses but also applies to many other professions.

I don’t have a problem with racial diversity, for as long as society is functioning well and the quality of life is high. But when these parameters starts to become stressed, all sorts of fractures open up, not least those between different racial, cultural, ethnic and religious groups.

But the most important aspect by far is the sheer numbers of people being added to our population, which by and large means to our cities, each year.

This is only half due to immigration. The other half is so-called natural population growth, or births in excess of deaths. Yes, this number is actually bigger than our immigration intake, which is hard to believe if you listen to the likes of Costello or Vanstone.

So, the thing to do is progressively reduce immigration down to about net zero, which would still allow an intake of about 35 000 per annum, and get the hell rid of stupid pro-natalist policies like that god-awful baby bonus.

Then, we will at least be on the right track towards seriously addressing the issue of our eternally growing and groaning cities.

The planning and development of urban conurbations is a vexing problem. However, the more relevant argument is not about population growth per se, but what is the sustainable footprint of a city like Brisbane? Some cities around the world have a cap of sorts, such as a bed cap, a green belt containing growth or even significant controls on land development.

One approach is as follows - A city's ecological footprint must be quantified and used as a yardstick with a view to ensuring it is reduced. Within the context of facilitating the growth of economic and social exchanges or capital, planning tools may then be better justified and adhered to to ensure growth is not unchecked. This is not about saving a furry animal, but instead, is about identifiying those values which we seek to enhance, and strive to achieve this enhancement through sustainble growth.

I believe that if city planners could arm themselves with the ability to apply a modicum of measurement to 'sustainability' starting with an ecological footprint, and couple it with the identification of values for which we wish to enhance (a healthy environment, social connections, increased trade, etc), they would not be held in a similar esteem to used car salesmen.

Given the growth at any cost mentality shown by all major political parties and governments, this will be difficult to implement. In south east Queensland, despite an 'almost visionary' regional plan, a supporting infrastructure plan was developed behind closed doors with a view to maintaining the unsustainable growth. Further, recent sneaky legislative changes have ensured that communities have little recourse to shaping to development of their neighbourhoods. In the words of the head of the Office of Urban Management who overseas regional planning, "we have now closed that loophole".

The future is not promising, despite the rhetoric delivered by purveyors of urban and regional planning. Sadly, because planners are disempowered and marginlised, a few road tunnels and a stillborn public transport system will ensure the decaying urban liveability cycle continues.

Justin Wells, for
Sustainable Brisbane