"She pilfers them from such parts of the world. So through immigration, Australia may in fact be decreasing the chance of these countries improving the lot of their citizens."

Fester,

That's true if we are permanently nicking the cream of their professionals just before their own countries are about to boom.

Think about what else might be happening though. What about the situation where we take their best people (and others) when their countries do NOT have the capacity or opportunity to fully use their abilities. And in a lot of SE Asian countries that is the case. To some degree we are doing them a favour as we are keeping their abilities and resumes current. After all, it's not like they would come here unless it was somehow in their interest.

After a certain time, I imagine there will be an inevitable drift of these migrants back to their home countries when there's an event or series of them (greater opportunities back home than before, missing the culture, homesickness, a future Australian Government reaction against excessive immigration, etc) that make it attractive to go back. At that point, not only has Australia kept these people employed and skilled during their time here, but their home countries will then import the benefit when presumably they're more ready to use the newfound skills.

On balance, I'd say they are better off being here than not. The fact that they come here in numbers is testament to that. If they return home after a period of time, I'd call that a win-win situation.

Rob

The point of my "pilfering" comment was not to suggest that Australia not take skilled people from developing countries. I think that a cultral exchange is essential for a developing civilisation. But as a wealthy nation, Australia should be a net exporter of skilled people and so contribute to the advancement of developing countries. Taking skilled people and giving nothing in return is parasitic.

<we take their best people (and others) when their countries do NOT have the capacity or opportunity to fully use their abilities>

So are you claiming that pilfering skilled people from developing countries is really an act of altruism? Are you being serious? So a hospital gets bombed in Ethiopia, and your altruistic response would be "Well, they have no hospital to work in now, so lets bring them to Australia."?

AndrewBartlett,

You say, "The Australian Election Study survey has shown that the majority of people surveyed at the last few elections have either said they support Australia's migration intake level or would like it higher. Only a minority have said they would prefer lower migration, and presumably an even smaller number would support zero-net migration into Australia."

I would like to get a hold of the above-mentioned study? Who exactly conducted the survey, what questions were asked and of whom? Are the results a statistically reliable indicator of the wider population's views on immigration and or population growth? Please provide details?

I find it hard to believe that the majority of people who actual know the immigration and net births minus deaths figures for Australia would be supporting the high levels we have. Certainly from my own inquiries, admittedly mostly of older people (who have been around long enough to experience the increased congestion, the constant loss of native bushland, water shortages etc etc) I find there is a pretty big majority who are decidedly against the levels of immigration we have in Australia.

Now here is an interesting poll result from ABC Unleashed...

An academic has suggested a carbon tax on babies as a measure against population growth. What do you think?

I agree. The idea recognizes that human population growth threatens the health of the planet. 49%
I disagree. The idea is punitive and reflects green extremism. 51%

990 votes counted

Judge for yourselves the mood of the people on the issue!

Andrew,
Talking of zero-growth, it was heartening to see the Aust electorate impose zero-growth on the Democrats. How does that old chestnut go ‘You can fool some of the people …’ It certainly restores ones faith in democracy.

Still, it’s good to see that while you might have lost your seat, you haven’t lost your sense of humor.
You can still tell whoppers – like this: “ I doubt other countries would believe we were being a 'good global citizen' by adopting a Fortress Australia policy which kept almost everyone else out …”
(that one had me ROFL)

Andrew, you’d have to go far a field to find those ‘other countries’ of yours. You’d do well to read the response of the Malaysia Prime Minister to the recent Burmese ‘refugees’.It seems that neither Burma, Thailand, Malaysia or Indonesia are very enthused about immigration.And I'd wager that Singapore, Vietnam or The Philippines are NOT big advertisers for immigrants, either.

But then, you’ll no doubt point to some fairy tale kingdom in old Europe whose immigration stance some NGO or UNO report lauds as caring ,responsible, and New-Age-Halal , and, the example we ABSOLUTELY MUST ape . I’ve always found it incongruous how your side of politics tell us we must look to Asia; see ourselves as one with our near neighbors in Asia, but, set our selves apart from mainstream Asian thinking on such issues as immigration.

The second funny you told was your talk of debates: “I only wish there was more exposure given to the arguments you try to make, so that those who are inclined to support them can see just how illogical and unfeasible your 'solutions' are”
(that one had me ROFLMAO)

Lets face it Andrew, the ‘debates’ you favor are staged events where a pompous few tell the many what they should be thinking on an issue and, try to silence opposition argument by labeling it racist or insensitive.

Yes, Andrew, I’d certainly want to see a recount on any poll you endorsed.

"So are you claiming that pilfering skilled people from developing countries is really an act of altruism? Are you being serious? So a hospital gets bombed in Ethiopia, and your altruistic response would be "Well, they have no hospital to work in now, so lets bring them to Australia."?"

Nope, I know it doesn't normally work like that. But that wasn't what my comment was saying. It wasn't about being altruistic per se, it was about absorbing other countries' excess human capacity when it wasn't in a position to use it itself. You know, a bit like acting like an overflow container on a car radiator. At least in Australia these people are getting the opportunity to use their abilities whereas they might not at home.