Mylakhrion,

Contrary to the impression the politicians try to create, Australia is not running out of people. According to the ABS approximately 2 babies are born and one net migrant arrives for every person that dies. With a 1.3% growth rate we are set to double in numbers in 53 years. Migration won't fix an older age structure because migrants get old too and can't be deported when their economic usefulness is over. What do we do when they need pensions and health care? Take in even more migrants? Where does it stop - at standing room only? Every country will just have to get used to a stable age structure, hopefully before everything has been devoured.

Migration has some real cultural and educational benefits, as does giving very gifted people an otherwise unachievable opportunity to develop their talents. These benefits could be achieved on a one-out, one-in basis, however. Mass migration is being driven by a corrupt and greedy elite, who undeniably benefit from high land prices, bigger markets, and cheaper labour. If you look at the CIA World Factbook on the Web you will see that there is no correlation between GNP per capita and population size, growth rate or density among the developed countries and a negative correlation between population growth rates and prosperity in the Third World. A number of other studies within countries have found that per capita economic benefits to the host population are "close to zero or negative". See the Center for Immigration Studies site (www.cis.org).

According all the State of the Environment reports since 1990, every environmental indicator in Australia has been getting worse, except for urban air quality. Quality of life is also being diminished by factors directly related to population growth: tiny block sizes, unaffordable housing, permanent water restrictions, etc., etc.

Re Sneekeepete's Yellow Peril arguments: countries with big, dense populations still get invaded (China by Japan in WWII). If your arguments have some substance, a nuclear weapons program could deter both armed and unarmed invasion.

In a parallel universe, the Eora people see a boatload of illegal immegrants (by the reckoning of those people, 26 January 1788) about to trespass on their land - and knowing, as many people on this forum say, that nation has a "homeland" and should stay there.

What a pathetic excuse these 'immigrants' have - social and political problems they won't resolve themselves, a messianic and aggressive religion, filled with diseases and dirt. Not the sort of people you'd want in Eora country.

So the sharper leadership of the Eora decide to surround the boats and set fire to them before they can disembark, no doubt with gunpowder explosions, spearing of survivors of the fire and loss of stores.

They might have been better off.

It is my opinion a reasonable target population for Australia is around 10 million.

Believe it or not, some population targets are MORE than we have today instead of LESS.

Is it a complex economic issue...
Or are you driven by the same urge to increase as mould, and cancer.

India and China,
Both countries are shining economic success stories the envy of your government, with no minimum wage, holiday pay, health cover, an average yearly income of 5000 dollars.
They will never own cars, there isn't enough metal in the ground.
They will never have a garden let alone the water to put on it.
And whats the upside ?, a permanently ruined environment.

FRANK.. I see the possibility here for progress.

I note your wider definitions of ethnocentrism and xenophobia.

But...

Do you not agree that there are certain cultural or religious practices which are not only incompatable but also dangerous for Australia ?

Would you want a few shipload of National Socialists to be welcomed to Australia after they had been given the short shift by Germany ?

If you can agree on this, then we are on the same page.

That brings us to the point of 'defining the edges and boundaries' of what is dangerous and unnaceptable, but I'll leave that till I see your response.
cheers
BD

David...in the spirit of progress.

I agree in theory that there may be certain cultural or religious practices which are not only incompatable but also dangerous for Australia (but NB my caveat below). The example you give - a shipload of National Socialists arriving on our shores - is neither cultural nor religious. It's political and ideological. (Although, I remember the collaboration of the Papacy with the Nazis during WW2; and in that sense it might be religious. Dictators and mad men have often run rampant in the name of God - and men of the cloth have often collude with ruling elites when it suited their purpose.)

The caveat - I would be wary of conflating what is 'dangerous' with what is 'unacceptable'. They are different. The first is a threat to life and reasonably easy to identify and agree upon. The second is more in the realm of value judgement - and subect to zenophobia and ethnocentrism.

Are we on the same page yet?

“According to the popular account, Archimedes was busy contemplating a mathematical drawing in the sand. He was interrupted by a Roman soldier and replied impatiently: "Do not disturb my circles".
The soldier was enraged by this, and killed Archimedes with his sword.”

Australia's politicans/OLO posters were busy contemplating population issues when they were interrupted by the news of the arrival of a flotilla of refugee boats : "Do not disturb us - we are busy devising an ecologically sustainable population model the politicans/OLO posters demnanded .”
[add your own conclusion]