While the Pope continues to refuse to endorse the rights of women, especially in relation to education and the ability to control their own fertility without coercion, there is indeed reason for serious concern.
While an adviser for the Australian Conservation Foundation, our premier environmental organization, deliberately turns a blind eye to the shattered lives, the innocent children with their childhood stripped away due to refusal of those rights in over-stressed countries – what to say? Other than that our international reputation as a country of decency and a fair go for all is not worth a pinch of rabbit dung

The writer at least acknowledges Australia's "inhumane" treatment of our refugees and the "apartheid-like" treatment of the indigenous. Our third great social inequity is so hidden that it doesn't even rate a mention: our failure to provide for those most vulnerable in our society, the intellectually disabled. While we continue to make services available for one in six of these desperately needy people, while we continue to allow our aged to care for our disabled, we can be certain that our international reputation in this sector, at least, is in tatters and that any sense of decency and fair go is a delusion.

there is this to be said for being a subject, rather than a citizen:

it's not your fault. whatever is done by the government, it's not your fault- because they don't ask you.

incidentally, if you would get in the habit of referring to the government as the government, rather than 'australia', your thinking in politics would be less murky, and your writing more convincing.

No useful discussion on the rights of people seeking to immigrate to this country, or to Europe, should begin without first acknowledging how immigration affects the rights of people already living here, our environment and our long term sustainability.

Those whose rights have not been considered have been the housing stressed who have seen the cost of housing rocket to the stratosphere. This was the effect both anticipated and welcomed by the property lobby (For more information, see my article "Brisbane's housing unaffordability crisis spun by ABC to promote property lobby interests" at http://candobetter.org/node/610)

My neighbour who rented half a house next door had her life made miserable as real estate agents marched in to her house almost at will over a period of six months to show prospective buyers the house they wished to purchase. After it was bought, the rent was jacked up and, not being able to afford it, she had to move. Last time I saw her she was in tears. This almost certainly would not have happened if the demand for housing had not risen so much as a consequence of population growth.

99% of refugee advocates have adamantly refused to consider how immigration affects the rights of existing inhabitants, such as my neighbour for at least the last 2 decades. This has added enormously to the public confusion and has served as a smokescreen to selfish vested interests who have successfully lobbied and achieve high immigration from the Hawke/Keating Labor governments, the Howard Government and, now the Rudd Government.

Why has the author made no reference to the fact that immigration to Australia has as a result of a decision announced by Immigration Minister Evans higher than it has ever been (well over 300,000)?

It is an outrage that an apparent advocate for environmentally destructive immigration is an advisor to the Australian Conservation Foundation.

The author is barely more honest than the virulently anti-democratic and pro-immigration Murdoch newsmedia (see http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/paulkelly/index.php/theaustralian/comments/open_door)of 17 May 2008 or "Workers Welcome" http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23705636-25209,00.html).

For some more honest, balanced and factual articles about the immigration question, please visit http://candobetter.org/immigration

daggett

You are dead wrong on two matters and misleading on a third.

1. Increases in housing costs are never the result of one single factor. However, if one single factor is what you seek, try the one-sided rules on negative gearing.

2. Immigration to Australia is nowhere near the figure you cite - 300,000.

You can only get to 300,000 by some creative counting including temporary visa holders and overseas students (which is what some dishonest commentators have been doing).

The actual projected figures are: 133,500 in the permanent migration stream and 56,500 in the family stream.
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23714642-421,00.html
http://www.workpermit.com/news/2008-05-13/australia/government-increases-skilled-migration-places.htm

In addition, you have totally overlooked the departure rate. Permanent departures from Australia in 2006-07 amounted to 72,103 (similar figure for the past few years) and over half of these were born in Australia.
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/publications/pdf/emigration_0607.pdf

So 133,500 + 56,500 - (say) 70,000 = net growth of 120,000.

3. I visited the website you recommended for "some more honest, balanced and factual articles about the immigration question" and found it earnest and well-meaning; but lacking in both factual content and authority.
http://candobetter.org/immigration

Alas!the world is learning the sad lessons of history and as one wise man once said," Those who dont learn from history are bound to repeat their mistakes."
Yes.I remember the world calling John Howard a racist.Some Australians joined inthe chorus,too.
Today, the UK, Belgium Holland,Germany Italy Spain and a good fewothers are now realising that Howard was man of wisdom and they regret massively that they qwere too cowardly to follow his policies.

History has a way of biting you on the bum when you deserve it.

socratease