Ok, a philosophical question :)

World population keeps growing at 80 million a year, as we push the
limits of the global human population. Yet climate change suggests
that this process could well land up causing hundreds of millions of
people to seek a new home, due to these changes, rising sea levels
etc. If they run out space elsewhere, they will want to come here.

The green/left end of politics, are those protesting loudest about
our past refugee policy, the fact that we should limit migration,
etc.

Yet at some future point the time may well come, when people like
Bob Brown and others, have to make a tough decision. If a global
catastrophe happens, do we take 20 million refugees or leave them
where they are? Do we save Australia and our environment, or do
we save 20 million or so refugees?

What comes first? Australia and Australians, or our compassion for
our fellow human beings?

Given that we refuse to address the continueing growing world
human population, this could well be a critical decision in the
future, unless we start to address the ever growing global human population now.

Yabby they can come on a few conditions.Firstly we have enough food for our own,secondly they abide by our laws and thirdly they get sterilised before they get in.

Anyway Yabby,if it comes to that WW3 will happen and billions will be killed.China and Russia will embark on some human culling to ensure their own survival.

Yabby
the problem is... knowing the 'line'.......

Where compassion will be self destroying it is meaningless. It's a matter of degree, and how to decide if we consider the following 'destructive':

-Dilution of our values.
-Usurping of our culture.
-Competition in language.

and many more I'm sure.

One mans 'compassion' is another mans 'cultural suicide'. Who is to decide which is correct? How is to decide how much cultural suicide we are prepared to stomach ?

As Ros said to Frazier when he was geeing her up to do a cheerleader thingy for their program by asking "Who has the best talk show in Seattle"...Ros then goes into cheerleader mode and says "WE DO WE DO"

I think that is self explanatory.

Ok, so what would be the Bob Brown/Greens response?

Take forever more millions of refugees or ruin the Australian
environment? Are there any Greens who can answer that?

In my not so humble view....... GREENS....

along with various other cult like groups, like to portray themselves as the 'champion' of the migrant, refugee etc.. why ? SIMPLE.. "political advantage".

If people perceive you as 'on their side' they are more likely to vote for you. The Greens are horrible, but not stupid, they know that they don't need 'millions' of people to swing an election and gain the balance of power.. (which is their goal anyway)

So... championing the alledged "plite" of 'refugees' will have 2 impacts.

1/ The (mindless) bleeding heart element already here will be more likely to vote for them.
2/ Those who actually benefit will ultimately vote for them.

and after all that, we will be subjected to the 'imposed' immorality that the Greens try to persuade us is 'moral high ground'.. what rubbish.

Yabby, The Greens, and the Democrats, lost me in August 2001 when both Bob Brown and then Dems leader Natasha Soul-Destroyer came out in total opposition to Howard’s efforts to deal with the looming asylum seeker crisis, which was galvanised by the Tampa incident.

They had absolutely no idea of what would happen if thousands of desperate people had been allowed to move freely in society, no idea of the vital importance of strong border protection or of the great escalation in numbers of people that had mobilised towards Australia at the time, no appreciation of Australia’s commendable efforts to deal with refugee issues via it offshore programs and of its right to say emphatically NO to onshore asylum seekers, and in short, no sense of balance whatsoever.

I haven’t noticed any modification in the outlook from either party over the last six years.

So I’m not too concerned about how they might respond to your questions.