Those that are interested in this subject should read the editorial intodays SMH.

http://www.smh.com.au/editorial

It is about some apparent annomilies in temporary work visas, an aspect not yet covered on this thread.

PaulL: << Whats tragic is that the small minds of the green left seriously believe that the Australian continent can't support our current population. >>

As usual, PaulL confuses the issue in his 'small-minded' effort to reduce the population debate to a 'left' vs 'right' dichotomy. He's apparently unaware that several of his wingnut cohorts at OLO have leapt on the sustainability bandwagon in order to disguise their xenophobic opposition to non-Anglo immigration.

The question isn't so much whether Australia can support its current population - clearly it can and does, at least in the short term. However, the point is the ecological cost of supporting our current profligate lifestyles and whether they can be sustained into the future.

The Australian environment is not only changing due to AGW, but it is displaying the morbid signs of deteriorating health - as any honest observer who lives outside the cities will attest. Water is in critically short supply in the south, soil salinity and erosion are rampant, the Murray-Darling basin is a basket case, etc etc.

Rethinking immigration is one aspect of the kind of radical shift in policy and agricultural, extractive and industrial practices in which we need to engage in order that our population might be sustained into the future.

CJ, you twist my words and then claim 'strange logic? Was it too hard to reply to my point without first distorting it? It's typically pathetic that you need to stoop to that kind of tactic in the vague hope of 'taking the moral high ground'.

Read carefully and you will see that I did not recommend the admission of skilled migrants. I only pointed out that they would be much less of a burden than unskilled ones. If that's a 'paranoid xenophobic response', your idiocy smacks of ultra PC, leftist drivel.

Voicing your views might win you a root at the students' union, but in reality, if the government was stupid enough to follow them, we would all be in the brown stuff.

It's a joke that when anyone mentions the 's' word (sustainability), you accuse them of xenophobia, racism, 'wingnutism' etc. What's the matter? Can't you handle the fact that not everyone agrees with you?

I can't wait for your reply accompanied by a tirade of your usual drool-enhanced insults. Bring it on.

Ludwig,
Whose figures are right?

Yesterday the Minister began with a figure of 133500 and cut 18500 from that and ended up with 115000.

I have seen all sorts of figures pertaining to immigration, up to 330000 and being a sceptic I doubt all of them.

Some that came up this morning.

2007-8
family reunion 49870
skilled 108540
total 158410

2008-9 originally announced
family reunion 56500
skilled 133500
total 190000

Add refugees 13000
total 203000
minus cuts 18500 announced yesterday
total 184500 expected for year

apparently incoming from NZ can also be added as, for some reason, we do not class Kiwis as immigrants (wonder why)

Are we being conned by the Government or what?
Obviously all the bandied figures cannot be correct, so can any one give accurate figures. I accept that a deduction of outgoing needs to be done to give a net figure but that is not quoted.

I also note that 457 visa holders are not included, nor are the overseas students.

Many thanks to Austin for demonstrating that it's not only refugees who have 'language difficulties'. While it's obviously his problem that he can't express himself properly, he involves others when he doesn't seem to be able to comprehend what we write. If he reads what I've been saying in this thread carefully, he might belatedly realise that I am an advocate of a sustainable population for Australia - but I object to xenophobes like him appropriating the concept as a screen behind which to express racist ideas.

Mind you, being familiar with the standard of Austin's reasoning abilities as evidenced in this forum over some time, I won't hold my breath.

Austin is also a good example of a wingnut who has latched onto the idea of population sustainability, contra PaulL's assertion that it is a notion that is restricted to the "green left".

Thanks, CJ, you didn't let me down. You made the usual rabid accusations that I would expect from you.

You claim that I have 'language difficulties' and 'can't express (myself) properly'. Maybe you'd care to explain how you came to that conclusion or is it just more hot air and insults in place of reasoning, for which you are famous? You should take debating lessons, as you are clearly incapable of having a discourse with someone who doesn't hold your views without frothing at the mouth.

Also, you might like to explain why I am a xenophobe (in your little eyes), if you can. As for having 'latched onto the idea of population sustainability', if you are, as you claim, 'an advocate of a sustainable population for Australia', what's the difference?