Why do we need immigration AT ALL?
OK, discounting refugees, a humanitarian obligation, why exactly do we need to grow our population?
More unemployed than jobs, housing shortages, environmental destruction, water disappearing, all would seem to mitigate against further growth in the numbers, yet it’s a Gov’ mantra.
I’ve always felt that the drive came from the business sector, looking for ever-increasing profits. More people meant more unemployed, which meant lower wages, bigger consumer base etc, yet we have clearly seen where that leads now.
I feel that a pause is warranted, a gathering of ourselves, a chance to solve some problems before drowning in them. Give the various groups already here time to assimilate, before we end up like Fiji or Sri Lanka, fighting the in-comers attempts to take over.
We don’t need ghettos, cultural separatism, religious and racial conflict, all results of our failure to defend our own identity as a nation, and giving in to the Idealists who insist that everyone will always be a good citizen if we bring them here and support them, a clear fallacy, events speak for themselves.
So, I ask again, how does it serve us

Immigration does not 'serve us'. It costs us. There is no need for immigration at all, Maximillion.

you make a fair point.

Although an immigrant myself I was follwoing a siple strategy of moving from one densely populated and resource depleted island (Britain) to a less densely populated, resource rich Island (Australia).

However, now that I am here, I would agree with your question..

Why do we need more folk?

I am not sure we do.. unless one is a property developer, builder or government, who need people to: buy houses and make profits, earn wages by building said houses or generating an ever increasing tax base from.

There are two schools of thought on this topic and unfortunately the "population growth proponents" seem to be more vocal than the "population conservatives"...

Personally, I am a "population conservative".. but would apply that reasoning on a world wide scale and not just limit myself to Aus.

Makesamillion.It all depends upon the numbers we import and how well they intergrate.Language above all else is the key.Without a common language there will be chaos and violence.

The economic imperative of having cheap labor at all costs,could be a serious negative.

Immigration is needed primarily for economic reasons and not just for business profits but to provide enough income to fund the rest of us in our later years. The age profile of the country is rising rapidly and there will soon be too many retirees to support with the existing population growth.

Statistically, for every four people who immigrate into this country, one person leaves permanently (75% of these being former immigrants) so it flows both ways.

It's not always a matter of providing "cheap labour" because there is usually skills based factors involved in the application for entry.

If you're against immigration for resource-based reasons then you can't argue the option of increasing our local birth rate to make up the declining numbers because it's the same thing - only slower.

Dear Max,

With a recession casting its shadow on
economic prospects around the globe, the
immigration debate was going to surface
sooner or later and heat up.

As the Australian Immigration Minister said
on Monday (according to Reuters), "We don't
want people coming in who are going to compete
with Australians for limited jobs." He then
annouced a 14% cut in the numbers of immigrants
to be allowed in this fiscal year. The cuts only
affect skilled mirgants. Family re-unification and
humanitarian immigration flows were left untouched.

You ask whether Australia needs immigration at all?
That's an issue that the Government needs to
seriously assess.

One of our major problems in
this country is our shortage of water.
The government needs to assess the
size of the population that the country
can realistically sustain.

We've signed treaties so we're legally
obliged to take in a certain number of refugees -
but we need to look at what the country
can manage to sustain - before any future intakes
of immigrants.

The answer is simple, Maximillion. All other things remaining equal, countries with a higher population density tend to have higher GDP per capita (ie more income per person), are better able to defend themselves and are more stable politically. These are very good reasons for a country to grow its population.

In the last 200 or so years, all other things have remained equal. That is something like 6 generations - a long time in human terms. If you assume what happened in the past is the best guide to what will happen in the future, then you are going to believe we should still be growing our population.

But, and it is a big but, those advantages disappear when the population hits resource limits. To put it another way, while it is possible to make the land yield more by adding people, the formula works. However, if you for example run out of water so that bringing in a new person ultimately means we all the rest of us have to make do with less water, you hit trouble. Ditto for arable land.

The situation gets worse if you are living off stored "fat reserves" - like fossil fuels. This allows the population to grow way beyond what the land can sustain. If we can't find alternatives for the "fat reserves" when they run out, the population crashes. Most of us have seen what this looks like on TV - starvation, death, war, flies and stuff. All very unpleasant. Unfortunately, the most populated places on the planet - China and India, are living on fat reserves. They rely on underground water to feed their populations, and their water tables are dropping.

Here in Australia we produce roughly 4 times more food than we need. So just looking at food and water, we could easily grow our population. For the me the argument is about what will happen when oil, natural gas and coal peak. We are about to find out I guess, as oil will almost certainly peak this decade if it hasn't already done so.

"Although an immigrant myself I was following a simple strategy of moving from one densely populated and resource depleted island (Britain) to a less densely populated, resource rich Island (Australia).

However, now that I am here, I would agree with your question.." (Quote:TB)
________

Nicely put.....

"So just looking at food and water, we could easily grow our population"
Sorry, I was under the impression we were in a loss situation in regard to arable land, salt, and development are consuming it at a rate of knots. Water is already short,and drying up fast, so I wonder at your claim. Other than that, we agree, I think.

Maximillion: "Water is already short,and drying up fast, so I wonder at your claim."

We produce about 4 times as much food as we consume. As you say, water is short, so we probably can't produce much more. However as it stands we could grow our population and export less food. If our current food production is indeed sustainable in the long term, my guess is we would be better off by doing it. The big question is whether it is sustainable given the other resource limits we are likely to hit this century.

My guess is that it isn't. But it is only a guess. Australia is pretty unique in this regard. Most countries are already very close, if not over, the limit of what is sustainable now.

It is because of capitalism's insane obsession with permanent growth of everything. Businesses must grow bigger every year. Economies must continue to grow bigger every year. Look at the current situation to see the rabbit in the headlights look of fear on all of the big capitalist players over a possible recession.

Growth at all costs, never mind the consequences is the mantra of capitalism and in so many ways (including unsustainable immigration) it is destroying all of us and the societies we have spent centuries building up. Not to mention the fouling of our own nest.

You guys are funny, no one asked the aboriginals this question.

I thought countries needed new people, pay tax, sweep the roads clean in the morning before you all travel on them?

Why are you telling your young women to go forth and multiply and paying them if you don’t need more people?

You got all those British boys in the forties to up your white immigrant numbers, you get them when needed aye and now you want to close the doors.

This goes back to affecting your perceived lifestyle?

NZ let the Islanders in, whites and Maoris all had jobs so didn’t want to clean the toilets anymore, had to find someone to do the dirty work.

This is land and humans should be allowed to live on it, countries shouldn’t stop people moving.

Where is this “she’ll be right” attitude.

There is a big lake by me, most boring lake in the world… should let the water Asians come and build jetty’s and have markets and stuff.

Everywhere I look there are big empty malls and new roads and developments with no people in them.

I was told, havn’t googled it or anything that after WWII Aussie predicted that the country would have many million more people in it by now?

You still going to let those people that bought land here come when their islands sink?

Jewely,
A couple of points for you to consider.

Aboriginals and other citizens have every right to comment on matters of immigration if they so wish. We have never had a referendum on immigration or multiculturalism, the politicians decided these matters, for better or worse.

The last studies I saw showed there was little or no gain for citizens from immigration. Big business wants immigration and gifts large donations to the coffers of the two major parties to ensure they get their way. What benefits the country has nothing to do with immigration.

We do not entice our young women to go forth and multiply, the politicians do that by offering the 'baby bonus' which most other people think is absurd.

The bringing of those British boys here after the war was the idea of the Brits to clear the orphanages out and we accepted them. Just like clearing the jails out in Britain in the 18th and 19th centuries.

I do not know of any country that simply allows people to come and go as they please. Why should we?

Hey banjo, Nah I meant the aboriginals way back when the first ships came.

Umm.. you mean no gain for current citizens, what did you want to gain from new citizens?

Sorry can’t help hassling you all about the baby bonus thing I do understand most of you don’t like it. But when I first got here this dude on TV was explaining how Aussie needs more people desperately and hence the baby bonus.

I think you accepted them cause those British boys boosted the numbers of a particular colour. All fine in theory just that weren’t treated nicely according to whatever it was a read.

You let Kiwis come and go as we please.[smile] Kiwi’s let you come and go as you please. I think the Islanders get to go to NZ whenever the whim takes them.

You should because all countries should. Anyone should be able to decide to go live somewhere else and go do it. I want to go live in this place I saw on TV where the Mayans live. Well I’m over that now but would be nice for all people to have all choices.

Wasn’t this how north America managed to start up, gotta get the masses in first.

Watched a thing today about the Romani peoples, too cool… gypsies.

We talk about the welcome matters. When I was a kid, a long time ago now, the cry was populate or perish. We only had ten million then, and now we are pushing twenty one. It may well be that Maximilion way up there in Darwin, sees no need to increase our population, but in truth, the land could probably support fifty million or more.

If a line is drawn from Mackay to Broome, there is a vast area of vacant land. It is a land of huge open spaces, and gets a lot more rainfall than the south of the continent. A huge pipeline from the Ord River to the red centre, would bring fresh water to a vast area of fertile soils, and feed a larger population than we imagine at present. The dream of diverting water from the northern high rainfall to the inland has been around a long time. In another life I was a farmer, and the cry then was grow more food, as Europe had nearly starved to death, in WWII but some imbecile thought we should import it all, and export our raw materials to pay for it. We got plenty of those too.

It is probably time to abolish all State Governments. The resources wasted on useless State administrations, who cannot even pay their bills for hospitals, in New South Wales, will all be swept away, if as I said on another post, the Federal Government enforces the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and allows anyone at all to bring a case under its auspices. Currently neither the Federal Court nor High Court will abide its provisions. Lawyers hate the Covenant but you will love it. It opens up an unprecedented chance for universal justice for all, and that is essential if the resources of the land are to be equitably distributed.

Thinkers like Lindsay Tanner, know the States are an expensive luxury. They will shrivel up and die unless they adapt to the Covenant. They do not have to go, but must accept the Commonwealth is paramount.

Peter the B’, after all your serious posts on matters legal, it’s refreshing to see you have a sense of humour after all.
“A huge pipeline from the Ord River to the red centre, would bring fresh water to a vast area of fertile soils,”
GOOD ONE Pete, I had a chuckle over that.
You contrast the dreamers with the reality, of vast vistas of an ancient sea-bottom, sand, salt and precious little else.
I actually agree with you re’ abolishing the states, with or without this Covenant of which you speak. I can’t see it actually ever happening though, too many vested interests there I’m afraid.
Keep those jokes coming, we all need a giggle occasionally

Jewely,
Sorry about the last post, it ended up on wrong thread but see you picked it up, good.

My experience is that you would find a lot of Kiwis bitterly opposed to NZ becoming another state of Aus. I think best left as is and we get on OK. If it works don't fix it!

One thing that is useful to know when debating Aus immigration. the major parties years ago agreed NOT to publicly debate immigration issues. At the time they said this was because it was too complex for us (the public) to understand. Now we all know the real reason was to save the polys from embarassing themselves and so they could pile on the bull. That is why we hear very little from the Opposition in relation to immigration. Even the Greens, who have a low immigration policy, say nothing because the hypocrites rely on Labor preferences to get seats in the Senate.

So you see, there are many reasons we have a high immigration rate and none of those reasons relate to being beneficial to Australia.

Makes one relize how stupid we are!

"A Dog looking out for its afternoon nap jumped into the Manger of an Ox and lay there cosily upon the straw. But soon the Ox, returning from its afternoon work, came up to the Manger and wanted to eat some of the straw. The Dog in a rage, being awakened from its slumber, stood up and barked at the Ox, and whenever it came near attempted to bite it. At last the Ox had to give up the hope of getting at the straw, and went away muttering: 'Ah, people often grudge others what they cannot enjoy themselves.'"

Aesop (620-560 BC)

"Like vnto cruell Dogges liyng in a Maunger, neither eatyng the Haye theim selues ne sufferyng the Horse to feed thereof hymself."

William Bullein: "A dialogue against the feuer pestilence" 1564

>>Although an immigrant myself I was follwoing a siple strategy of moving from one densely populated and resource depleted island (Britain) to a less densely populated, resource rich Island (Australia). However, now that I am here, I would agree with your question. Why do we need more folk?<<

Col Rouge, 2009

It's an attitude as old as the hills.

One bunch of immigrants telling another bunch of would-be immigrants that they're not welcome, because... they're immigrants.

No, because the Inn is full, until we build the annexe. Plus some of the guests are a little rowdy just now, perhaps you'd care to wait till they settle down?

“Sorry about the last post, it ended up on wrong thread but see you picked it up, good.”

I have done that twice today and you can’t edit or delete stuff aye. Seems to be several threads where the themes have been similar.

“That is why we hear very little from the Opposition in relation to immigration. Even the Greens, who have a low immigration policy, say nothing because the hypocrites rely on Labor preferences to get seats in the Senate.
So you see, there are many reasons we have a high immigration rate and none of those reasons relate to being beneficial to Australia.”

By Australia you mean the peoples but if more people came here they would become the peoples and they would find it beneficial. Oh I need one of those smilie faces with the big eyes and pursed lips.
I don’t think you ended up giving me a reason though just kind of told me why I haven’t heard it yet.

“Makes one relize how stupid we are!”

Oh I thought it was cause you were nice, I’m packing immediately!

Jewely,
Please do not pack. I love foster mums as I think they do wonderful unselfish work. It must be hard to part with the kids. And we need you, with the baby bonus creating more kids there will be more and more mothers finding they are unable to cope. Having a baby may be a young womans dream, but I think many find the reality pretty tough in many circumstances.

Yes we are stupid. The only reason for us to take in more people is if we get some benefits from it. We won't reduce the worlds poverty by taking in a few more million people. All we are doing is lowering our own standard of living.

Yet we allow our politicians to get away with imposing a high immigration rate that only benefits a few developers and big business that sells more consumer goods. This causes the cost of housing to go up and we live further away from our work. It takes longer and costs more to get to and from work. Standing room only on transport. Even queues are longer everywhere and class sizes are larger with teachers spending less time with each kid.

I do not see any benefits from having a larger population. Unless one has a job that can only be done in a city, they can keep the city. In my closest town a lot of working people can still go home for lunch, which is unimaginable in a city, unless you live in the flat above your shop.

More people means more traffic, more trucks on the road, more red lights and speed cameras, more holiday conjestion, more accidents, more fights and knivings at night and more drunks making a nusiance of themselves. One thing there is less of and that is parking spaces.

Like the drover said; 'The more I see of people, the more I like my dog'

So unless we are gaining a lot, why bring more people here to lower our standard of living and dissrupt our lifestyle? That is stupid and unnecessary.

Banjo:”Please do not pack. I love foster mums as I think they do wonderful unselfish work. It must be hard to part with the kids. And we need you, with the baby bonus creating more kids there will be more and more mothers finding they are unable to cope. Having a baby may be a young womans dream, but I think many find the reality pretty tough in many circumstances.”

No way I would go back to NZ, when I commit, I commit. I chose Oz for my family and I have landed in such a sheetty neighbourhood but spend my days smiling. I have already had the privilege of loving several small Aussies, no going back now.

Banjo honey no one is asking you to reduce the worlds poverty. My hubby commutes over two hours to his work, no biggy. We overpaid for our house, is alright. My son stands on his two hour commute, he’ll deal with it. Education for my daughter was crap, she left, no blame no shame.

This larger population… is people, blood, thoughts, feelings, life. Fight more, live more.

You will gain more with a change in attitude.

No lowering but more a diving in to life. I am trying to edit thoughts and I know I am failing but people, people matter, all of the people from everywhere bring joy, sadness, anger, bitterness, and laughter, death, but life lots of life. An understanding of people and acceptance brings a quality of love of people that is amazing.

Right and wrong and where they come from brings children and cuddles and love.

Oh I went all soppy right there at the end. People are amazing. I don’t care whether a two year old came from poverty, another county, another race or religion they are amazing and worth all the hugs. All people were that two year old at some point.

Who cares about trucks.[smile] Banjo, let them come.

Part One
Let's see with few words who prefers less migrants and who more IN ANY PART OF THE WORLD, NOT ONLY IN AUSTRALIA.
I must make clear from the begin, that every one who is against more migrants does not mean he/she is a racist!

A Less migrants
1. racists-nationalists, they want to keep their race, their nation "clean" from other races or nationalities. Clerics, military or police officers, language teachers, and any other profession which "guard" sides of the race-nationaly ID.
2. Unemployed people, unskiled people, people with housing problems prefer less migrants.
3. Conservative political parties prefer less migrants, because we know that migrants WORLDWIDE are more progresive, more left than the locals. For example in USA most migrants prefer Democrats, in Australia more Migrants prefer ALP than Liberals. The migrants turn the balance to left worldwide. But a strong part of conservatives and employer's associations prefer more migrants. For this reason conservative parties have two voices about migrants, as Howard's government. After the elections conservatives bring more and more migrants because it benefits corporations the backbone of conservatives BUT when we are close to the next elections conservative change retoric and speak against migrants or special groups of migrants as muslims, Blacks etc.
4. Trade Unionists. The mass majority of Unionists, from the bottom to the top, are against more migrants because as we bring more migrants the working conditions become worst, the ability of the unions to press employers weaken!
I saw and heard from many unionists in many countries to be against new migrants NOT BECAUSE THEY ARE RACISTS BUT BECAUSE THEY HAVE LESS POWER TO HANDLE WORKERS PROBLEMS. There is a small part of Unionists, Usual on the top Level, the educated one, the real left , the internationalists, the bleading hearts who are opened to more migrants. Of cause there are the migrants unionists who prefer more migrants to change balance of power in the union or party. Migrants have better contact with new migrants!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide
Continue

Onya Jewely.

Compare and contrast:

Banjo: >>why bring more people here to lower our standard of living and dissrupt our lifestyle? That is stupid and unnecessary.<<

Jewely: >>This larger population… is people, blood, thoughts, feelings, life. Fight more, live more.<<

One anal-retentive, selfish, dog-in-the-manger, fearful, comfort-loving miser.

The other an outgoing, life-loving, adventurous, caring, generous example to all.

I'll leave it up to you to puzzle out which is which.

And which one you'd be both fortunate and honoured to have as a friend

Part two
B. More migrants
1. All businesses, more people means biger market, more houses, more shops, more businesses etc. Biger population means bigger stability and developement BUT also more migrants means more working force, lower working costs!
2. Progresive parties, as labors, greens etc have the bigest portions of migrants votes But in these parties there is a big resistance against more migrants from their low income voters plus from the Unions.
3. Migrants want more migrants, relatives, friends, same language, race or religious PLUS they know more migrants means that they have more votes, more power!
4. Strategic minds, futurists, people who can see beyont their nose, who can plan for the next 100, 200 or more years!. THE COUNTRIES WITH BIGGER POPULATION ARE THE WINERS, ESPECIALY IN DEMOCRATIC ENVIRONMENTS! AS THE WORLD BRACE THE POLES SYSTEM AND CREATE THE MULTIPOLAR SYSTEMS, IN THESE SYSTEMS THE VOICE OF THE COUNTRIES WITH MORE POPULATION ARE MUCH STRONGER THAN THE VOICE FROM LESS POPULATION.
For example, the weak, less developed Poland has more representaves, more power in the European Union bodies, parliament, commisions etc, than a developed country as Sweden.
Personaly FOR MANY REASONS I prefer more and more migrants.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Maximilion, living in Darwin, with as many people in total as my Sydney Suburb, you probably have a greater chance of getting your local member to ask a question in federal Parliament, than I have. Ask your local member by email, if you cannot see him personally.

Please have an assistant get the Hansards for 1985 and 1986. In them you will find the debate on the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission Act 1986, and the Australian Bill of Rights. When you have them you will see that the Covenant was enacted as Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act. You will see that it was supposed to be repealed from there and reenacted immediately into the Australian Bill of Rights.

As Schedule 2 though, to the Human Rights Act 1986, it should still have the force of law, by reference to S 12 and 13 Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The question for Robert Mc Clelland I would like you to ask is:

If the ICCPR was enacted in 1986, by the then Labor Government, will the current Labor Government announce that it is in force in Australia as published on the Comlaw website, and undertake a review of all subsequent and previous discriminatory legislation and regulations made by all Commonwealth Public Authorities and Ministerial directives, that are inconsistent with its provisions, in the light of S 5 Commonwealth of Australia Constitution Act 1900, and s 109 Constitution.

You understand the consequences for McClelland if he gets asked that question. If he lies about it is it the Joel Fitzgibbon walk? If he does not lie, he must sack a good few lying Judges, who have denied its existence. My old mate Jesus Christ, said ask and you shall receive, seek and you shall find, knock and it will be opened for you, so all you Maximilions out there, the magic millions, start asking some questions of your local members. It might even result in justice, instead of the just us, that lawyers deliver to us now. VIVA OLO

More migrants means more population, more populations means stronger defence system, means higher ability to defent our country.
Less population, as the low birth rates in west countries means that one, after the other these countries will disappeared! (This was for the nationalists)
The problem with nationalists is that they did not learn to use their brain, that they can not see farther than their nose and with their acts they drive their countries opposite from where they want to go.
For me the question is not more or less migrants, sure more, BUT WHEN WE WILL START THE CONVERTION OF AUSTRALIANS DESERTS TO THE BIGEST FOREST ON OUR PLANET. WE CAN! We can do it but we must change our mind. Sure will find resistance from the other side, the lefts (especialy from some extrem Greens) they are fanatic too and some times with their acts they bring the opposite results.
We saw it with the fires in Victoria! Do not cut the tree next to your door because you will kill the bags on the tree, but they underestimate the risks that of cause this tree we will destroy the whole forest, burn all the wild animals and many people, destroy the properties and wealth from many families.
The real question is not more or less migrants BUT are we ready to use our brain or we will continue sliping?
If we use our brain then Australia, a whole continent, can give the food for hundrends of millions of people.
I prefer an Australia with more than 120 million people!
And this ONLY as the begin!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

Well, P the B, I actually DO occasionally chat with the local Fed reps and senator, I have a work connection, so I'm going to print out your question and pass it on. I don't know exactly when I'll actually see them next, and I don't trust their flunkies to pass it on, but if I get an answer, I'll post it.

Jewely,
Must disagree with you. While I commend your outlook, I think you are making the most of a bad situation. 2 hours commuting! You probably justify that by saying other people travel further, take longer or cost more. I feel sorry for all those in that situation and the underlieing problem is PEOPLE, too many.

When I look at other countries I appreciate what we have here. England and Europe are beyond help and all from incontroled immigration. Unfortunately, we are rapidly following that path.

Every plane load of immigrants erodes our way of life a little more and the politicians do not care. I do not blame the immigrants themselves for wanting to improve their lifestyle. I would too in that situation. There are more restrictions and regulations imposed on us as each day passes. Take building regulations for example, one no longer can start off slowly and build as funds allow, but has to have the whole done in a certain time. Have you noticed that there are 'no parking' signs and 'no right turn' signs where one should be able to park or turn right. All this because of more PEOPLE!

I cry when I see good productive land being covered by asphalt, concrete and buildings as we have so little.

Call me selfish if you wish, but If there are no fish a grandpa cannot teach the lad to fish and a dad cannot show him the joys of camping if it is only in a designated area with other crowded campers.
More people restrict these sorts of things.

I believe I am practical and have the foresight to want some freedoms and choices available for the future Australians. We have been blessed with abundance and we are currently splurgeing that by bringing in more and more people.

We are the most generous and stupid people on earth in giving away our heritage.

Antonios

“More migrants means more population, more populations means stronger defence system, means higher ability to defent our country.”
---Not if:
1. Migrant allegiances lay elsewhere, à la “our religion before nationality”, or .
2. Population support needs drain the budget –leaving little for defence.

“Population, as the low birth rates in west countries means that one, after the other these countries will disappeared! (This was for the nationalists)”
--- For every able bodied migrant you import, you will eventually through family reunion or some other shonky scheme (by default) import two and in some cases many more “dependants” who are too old, too infirm, or due to some cultural more unable to contribute to the commonweal and will rely on social welfare for the reminder of their lives.

“The problem with nationalists is that they did not learn to use their brain…”
---The problem with many people who consider themselves “progressives”
is they let their heart rule their head–and they don’t learn from history:
• Kosovo was once Serb heartland --it is now no Serbs land.
• Lebanon was once a Christian enclave –it’s now largely populated by later arrivals, who are largely hostile to the Christian identity.

“WHEN WE WILL START THE CONVERTION OF AUSTRALIANS DESERTS TO THE BIGEST FOREST ON OUR PLANET. WE CAN!
---You’ve got better prospects of terraforming Venus or Mars!
1) Have you done a cost benefit analysis ? and
2) You will find that much of that land has been ruled--- off limits--- for most Australians.

"I prefer an Australia with more than 120 million people!"
---Dream on!

“Must disagree with you. While I commend your outlook, I think you are making the most of a bad situation. 2 hours commuting! You probably justify that by saying other people travel further, take longer or cost more. I feel sorry for all those in that situation and the underlying problem is PEOPLE, too many.”

If there were more people where we are two hours north of Sydney maybe hubby and son could find jobs in the IT industry here Banjo.

It’s not the immigrants it was the house prices in Sydney three years ago.

“Every plane load of immigrants erodes our way of life a little more and the politicians do not care.”

I didn’t swim here dude.

You don’t want more immigrants cause then you have to turn right? Do you live in the middle of a city Banjo? Cause your descriptions seem to be all about lack of land and stuff… Aussie might be bigger than you think.

“We have been blessed with abundance and we are currently splurgeing that by bringing in more and more people.”

Abundance, you seem to think there is no abundance and one more plane load will take Aussies last blade of grass out from under you.

“We are the most generous and stupid people on earth in giving away our heritage.”

Hmmm… You’re not sounding too generous right now and you don’t have to give away your heritage, just bloody share it. This isn’t the Rift Valley, you are all immigrants.

You beauty, Maximilion. I raised this with a Chairman of a major mining company in Sydney this morning. He was also incredulous that if what I am saying is right, and it is, that we could have been conned so thoroughly for 23 years. I am absolutely certain that if this was tested in a fair just and impartial tribunal of fact, they would find as fact that we have a Bill of Rights.

I am currently arguing with one of the Chief Justices about the “Kable Principle” established in 1996, ten years later. Four High Court Justices agreed, that we had to keep the courts, in the good working order they were in, in 1900.

This decision could easily have been decided by reference to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and S 109. Kable was discriminated against by State legislation enacted by the Parliament of New South Wales. They passed legislation to gaol him indefinitely without jury trial. Two law professors, both of which I was lectured by, Professor Paul Fairall, and Professor Neil Rees, wrote an article in the Bond Law Review criticizing the legislation. The High Court was moved to consider it, and on the 7th and 8th December 1995, in one of the first High Court transcripts published on the internet, the arguments advanced there were made available to everyone. The decision itself is on the net too.

My argument nowadays is that a court, without a capital letter, as used in the Constitution, is a universal catholic church, in which we should all be entitled to worship, and a Court is an exclusive club, run for lawyers, by lawyers, and has been illegal ever since the first one was created by bad Statute law. A Court is a type of Sharia Law, institution whereas a court with a Justice and a jury, is Christian, as a manifestation of the Holy Trinity. The words in S 79 Constitution do not allow any other court. I may be a Christian, but that has not blocked out my logic chip or closed my mind.

Peter the Believer,

Way too esoterically legal deep for me to argue either way emphatically but I wonder if some of what you say isn't a bit like 'thunk tank'logic i.e. starting from a conclusion (your views of the courts and the initial constitutional statutes) and working backwards.

Either way I wonder how this is going solve the real problem here.

Max,
One could debate your inn being full analogy. It could be be construed in terms those in a 6 star Hotel refusing to house some poorer people because it may mean the exclusivity is lost.

The whole immigration argument seems to be predicated on Horus' two seemingly juxtaposed camps of perceived self interest. The one flaw in his argument is that all nations change as does their cultures. Perhaps ironically speaking that is the only constant with 'nations'
It seems to me therefore Waring to maintain some contemporary view of a culture is as pointless as King Kanute's command to the sea.(a la Banjo et al).

Change will happen regardless if we want it or not.

Therefore the matter at hand can be seen in terms of being faced with an catastrophe like an impending meteor collision only the meteor is our manner of existence. We all change or we all will go extinct it's all a mater of time. In that context what does it really matter where we live when the crash comes.

Agreed, that is a might melodramatic but in essence IMO what we as a species is facing is that stark by comparison.

Then again I could simply ignore it because no doubt I'll have been converted to my basic elements by the time it does anyway.
Notwithstanding I do have hope for future generations. After all they would have to work hard to exceed the disasters of my 'we're gonna change the world for the better' generation.

Max,
One could debate your inn being full analogy. It could be be construed in terms those in a 6 star Hotel refusing to house some poorer people because it may mean the exclusivity is lost.

Yes, one could, as long as one didn't remove one's rose-coloured glasses.
While you argue cogently, you start from a premise that all change is inevitable, apparently. I say, yes, change is certain, but we can choose, to a degree, and we don't need to surrender everything to the winds of time.
Our reality is that of a nation on the brink of exceeding it's capacity, whichever way you look at it. Must we leap from the cliff-edge just because there will be change anyway, or can we stop, pause, and decide which way to climb, up or down?
Our forebears didn't sweat and bleed that we might give this great island away on a whim, or consign their children to history's dusty halls. We are here because of what they endured and achieved, we owe it to they and our descendants to honour their efforts, and make our own in our turn, however unpleasant that might be. No-one here wanted to fight the Second World War, but they did, and bled and died, and sent their sons to cast their lives away on foreign soils, that we might sit and debate these things in peace. Would you spit on their sacrifice, for the sake of an ideal that ignores the basic facts of real life?
They were immigrants, and the sons and grandsons of immigrants, but they believed in their cause, and in Australia, and gave of their blood that we might be a proud strong nation, and I for one will not see that go quietly into the dark!
That is NOT the Aussie way!

Jewely,
Has it occured to you that if there were even more people you may have had to buy your home further away from hubby's work or that hubby may have had to take a lower paid position closer to where you could afford.

You say it is not immigration but Sydney house prices that forced you into being 2 hours away work. Immigration has an effect on house prices. Lets say we have immigration of 200,000, with 4 persons per house there is a demmand for 50,000 homes just to acomodate those immigrants each and every year. With most wanting to be in our major cities and along with the demand by our young for homes, it is this demmand that escalates prices of homes.

Yes we have an abundance of many things, like beaches, moderate climate, minerals, fish and open space. But these are not infinate and we also are short on some things. Good productive fertile land and water are 2 things we are short of.

Talk to your kids about our geography and ask why our population is on the coast, and the East coast mainly. West of the dividing range the rainfall drops off and thus limits production. Watch the daily TV weather reports, especially ABC, and see where the rainfall mainly is.

All the examples I gave are indicators of the impact of more and more people and were chosen because most can relate to them. There are other more complex indicators like soil salinity, etc.

I am very generous and in my community we all help each other. But one cannot help another if you are not on firm footing yourself. I want all our kids to be able to walk or ride bikes to school. It indicates something is very wrong if you have had to escort your kids to school, carrying a bat. Too many people again.

If you like Aus to a lifeboat and you keep pulling survivors into the boat. If you don't stop when the boat is full then the boat can sink and there is another catasrophy.

Doesn't necessarily follow, Banjo.

>>Jewely, Has it occured to you that if there were even more people you may have had to buy your home further away from hubby's work or that hubby may have had to take a lower paid position closer to where you could afford.<<

Those are only two of many possibilities, Banjo.

Another would be that the cost of accommodation in cities will encourage the establishment of more businesses in outlying centres. With the massive improvements in communications capability over the past few years, it is much easier than ever before to move a business out of the city.

This will, over time, create the same problem again in the regional centre, but - hey, that's just progress.

>>With most wanting to be in our major cities and along with the demand by our young for homes, it is this demmand that escalates prices of homes.<<

This is a circular, and illogical argument.

People "want to be in our major cities" because that's where the jobs are.

It would be simplicity itself for a city to say "that's enough, no more businesses here", if their existence was in fact the root of the housing problem.

But it isn't.

And it doesn't have to be left to legislation either, since supply and demand go hand-in-hand. If I were to set up a business in an area which my staff found too expensive to reach, I simply wouldn't have a business.

>>I want all our kids to be able to walk or ride bikes to school.<<

Of course you do. It's what I did when I was a kid.

But that was in London, so clearly it has nothing to do with population size, or density.

(n.b. London is a large city in the northern hemisphere)

>>It indicates something is very wrong if you have had to escort your kids to school, carrying a bat. Too many people again.<<

No. Non sequitur again.

Your need to "carry a bat" is independent of the number of people.

Admit it, Banjo. You just don't like dem furriners, do you?

Hey Banjo, no that didn’t occur to me… the bit about being even further away for work. But if the immigrants can afford the houses closer to Sydney then that is just our hard luck.

I am not talking to my kids they have standard replies these days like “get offline”.

Walking kids to school with my trusty cricket wicket – that was back in Wellington with the Samoans… looks like Melbourne has the same problem and because I also am generous with my community I will be sending them a shipment of wickets immediately.

I thought you were on the East coast mainly because of the ocean and the ports and a huge lack of imagination after landing.[grin] But I asked before – is it lack of water or just not good water management?

I don’t see Aus as a life raft though, more like the QEII.

Save the Krill! (oh oops wrong thread)

Jewely,
Foxy's info made me realise how important krill are in the scheme of things.

I think you got the gist of my example of the lifeboat.

Maybe the early colonialists liked the beaches and surf, but most of the water falls on the coast and in the tropics. From time to time someone puts forward a scheme to put more water into 'the centre' but the economic viability seems to be the problem. These days the enviromentalists could probably stop it anyway. If you get the chance, go see the Snowy Scheme. it was our major project to turn the water west to provide irrigation and generate power. Quite amazing engineering and lots and lots of immigrants worked on that.

I note that no one on this thread has yet put forward reasons why we should take in more immigrants. The old post war adage of 'populate or perish' seems well and truely gone. These days it seems the only reason is to sell more consumer goods.

“Foxy's info made me realise how important krill are in the scheme of things.”

Now if I can make you realise how important humans are I’ll be happy.

“I think you got the gist of my example of the lifeboat.”

Yeah but I wasn’t going to admit it.

“Quite amazing engineering and lots and lots of immigrants worked on that.”

I will go read it, I’ll assume for now you are sending me to see something that worked though. So we can take water away from the discussion?

“I note that no one on this thread has yet put forward reasons why we should take in more immigrants. The old post war adage of 'populate or perish' seems well and truely gone.”

Okay forget war, think more in terms of people; beyond all the truly needy ones that really will be killed back at home for whatever reason.

Imagine a family, over from Mexico that came for a holiday in Oz and fell in love with the place. They decide they want to pack up and bring their 17 children to live in Australia. Why stop them? What would you say to Paedro and Conchita Banjo?

“These days it seems the only reason is to sell more consumer goods.”

Well they would have to feed and clothe their children and consuming is hard to avoid for most families. The fact that business benefit from it should make them happy but hey that’s all normal isn’t it?

Jewely,
No I don't want to take water away from the debate. Aus is the driest continent on earth so water is a major factor in whatever we do. Proper distribution is not the problem, it is the lack of rain and the cost of providing adequate water to meet the needs. I refered you to the Snowy Scheme so you can understand the enomous problems in meeting the water and power needs here. Another such scheme could not be built today because of enviromental matters, not engineering. One would have to be deaf and blind not to be aware of the continuing debate about the Murray-Darling basin and its problems, and it is our largest river system. You may not understand it but everyone is aware of the debate going on and have some udea of the importance.

If i were the benevolent dictator of Aus, I would say to Pedro and Conchita, "Sorry folks, we have a Zero Net Immigration policy in place and we have the quota for this year. Pedro I see you have skills we need but we do not feel it right to poach those with skills away from your country that needs the skills far more than we do. We will just have to make do until we train our own"

Sure people need consumer goods, but now the sale of these goods is the catalyst that drives the high immigration policy. The Fed Gov disregards any limitation, on social or enviromental grounds, and does not even have a population policy. They cannot say how many people we should have, and we let them get away with not saying.

As I said before, we really are stupid.

If i were the benevolent dictator of Aus, I would say to Pedro and Conchita, "Sorry folks, we have a Zero Net Immigration policy in place and we have the quota for this year. Pedro I see you have skills we need but we do not feel it right to poach those with skills away from your country that needs the skills far more than we do. We will just have to make do until we train our own"

Why Zero Net policy? Why not get rid of people, anyone who has been here too long like over 4 generations should get out now, their time is up.

Poor Pedro and Conchita, I think one of their kids was going to end up the most brilliant Prime Minister of Australia that it has ever had and she was going to sort all these problems.

“No I don't want to take water away from the debate. Aus is the driest continent on earth so water is a major factor in whatever we do.”

Bugger you Banjo, now I’m going to have to go read about water (you will have to give me a few days). But how many Englands could fit in to the Oz East Coast? Even if you take away the land mass of the dry sandy bits this land is huge.

My neighbour is stupid, swear to it in court. You’re not. Aussies aren’t (in general). I wish you would get rid of the whole state government thing though

Jewely,
Why Zero net immigration? Well we seem to be coping, barely, with the population we now have and lets keep it static for a while and then look at making adjustments if needed. The baby bonus should go.

I am sure you are aware we cannot deport citizens at all or even 'permanent residents' unless they commit a crime resulting in 2 years jail. But yeah, there are some Aussies I could cull.

On the water thing, you will probably find the Snowy Scheme more interesting than the current debate about the Murray-Darling basin, which is very complex and all sorts of different views and needs have to be considered. For the ordinary person,just to understand its importance in general terms is sufficient. Realise that an increased population would have a big effect on the water situation.

Yep it does seem ridiculous that we hve 3 tiers of government. State governments are sovreignties in their own right so they would be hard to get rid of. They would hang onto their power like leeches.

Jeez Banjo leave the baby bonus alone, where do you think I get foster kids from?

Yep the Murray thing is confusing… the people at the end don’t want the people upstream taking the water? Yep I will read it better, even I suspected that was too easy.

If I could live in Riyadh and not die of thirst in that huge city I suspect Alice Springs could possibly get a little bigger.

Actually in the middle of the Saudi Arabian desert with 5 million other people I saw swimming pools ten times the size of any I’ve seen here.

How come the Arabs can do it?

Huh? Huh? Yeah that’s what I thought

Jewely, they do it by spending billions of Petro-dollars on de-salination, money we neither have nor can afford.
And I suggest you look more closely at the water supply situation in SA, Adelaide depends on the Murray like no other city, there is precious little water anywhere else. At times in Adelaide the water is almost undrinkable, despite filtration, the Murray water is so salty and polluted, let alone LOW, that it almost doesn't pass WHO guidelines.
Kill the Murry and you kill SA. look too at Acidification around Lake Alexandria, and the death of the Coorong, the salination of the Riverland, yep, they get a bit antsy when Q'ld builds more dams, and Vic dips in too, and NSW waters it industries wastefully, wouldn't you?

Max, I swear being on this site is like being at school and everyone keeps making more homework for me!

Why doesn’t Aussie spend billions and build some de-salniation plants? Water recycling plants - do you even do that here with your dirty water?

Right I will go read about the Murray and Adelaide. At this point I’m not sure “need” actually equates to “right” where rather long rivers are concerned but I’ll see if I can go find something to change my mind.

http://www.environment.gov.au/water/publications/action/case-studies/murray.html

I read this, everything seems okay?