Great job Ludwig, Yabby , Jayd, Bazz & Austin--well argued ,well presented, & well won --high-five’s all around!

Two of the key features of team-Bronwyn seem to be a limited knowledge of history, geography , human nature ...practically everything!
And, an unlimited grab bag of prefab pleadings.

LOL

Cheers all

Fascinating. In the last week the media's been full of reports about Australia's burgeoning population and the exponential rate at which it's increasing. The Rudd government has outlined its plans to encourage this trend, which will result in an Australian population of 35M by 2050. Australia's population has increased by 439,000 in the year to March, of which 300,000 were due to immigration.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,26110375-421,00.html

Various conservation groups and the Greens have expressed dismay at this trend, and have called upon the government to reduce immigration and to promote population sustainability.

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,,26092455-1702,00.html

If one was "passionate" about promoting debate about a sustainable population at OLO, there is plenty of fodder in these reports to stimulate an intelligent discussion about the pros and cons of increasing Australia's population. However, what does Ludwig do when presented with a prime opportunity to reinvigorate his favourite topic on these pages?

He posts a scurrilous 'dog-whistle' comment lauding the attempt by the odious Liberal MP Julie Bishop to exploit the misery of 'boat people' yet again. Sure enough, a few of our usual mutts have responded predictably, spewing out a litany of lies and distortions that serve to divert attention completely away from the real issues associated with record immigration levels, on to a relative handful of desperate refugees wo arrive by boat.

I haven't read a single factual comment from the haters and refugee-bashers who responded so readily to Ludwig's dog-whistle - rather, they just regurgitate the kind of factoids that are given credence by wingnut radio shock jocks and their internet equivalents.

Ludwig should be thoroughly ashamed of himself - as should Horus's haters, who are certainly way in front when it comes to inhumanity and mendacity.

CJ Morgan

I too have been struck by the fixation upon the smallest segment of Australia's immigration - boat people. If Australia was to adopt a policy of returning every single boat arrival from now on, there would not be a measurable difference in Australia's population now or in the future, which as you have pointed is projected to be 35 Million by 2050.

The question we need to ask is can Australia sustain 35 million people? I don't think we can. A limit must be set and both population policies and sustainable infra-structure set in place. Not in some nebulous future date - but NOW.

The best thing we can do for developing countries, is to ensure the availability and knowledge of contraception to the women of these countries.

This obsession with a handful of people arriving destitute on our shores, the majority of whom turn out to be genuine asylum seekers, is nothing more than a red herring designed to prevent us from establishing limits and goals which we as a country can work towards.

This entire thread is a furphy. It is not about sustainability, nor is it about keeping terrorists from our shores (who arrive by plane rather than risk the leaky boat) it is just a sick, sad opportunity for a few who have more time than intelligence to continually denigrate a few miserable people, while ignoring the very real challenges that face us as we head into a future where resources are finite.

Ludwig for the benefit of us all, and to claw back some credibility, please explain your obsession with boat people over the very real problem of over-population.

Fraccy, you still don't get it and you never will. The debate about
boat people is not about hatred or anything else, its about principle.

Fact is that the whole thing costs an absolute fortune, is not fair,
nor safe, nor just, nor anything else. It just keeps dragging on,
year after year. Those resources could help one hell of a lot more
people, if spent wisely, which is not the case here.

So the way to fix it, is to shut it down, once and for all, for
good.

If you then want to have another debate about Australia's population,
that is a separate issue, go right ahead.

"You could begin by explaining how we can stop the boats coming without condemning people to danger and death. You keep lauding Howard's policies. Do you ever consider the deaths and the misery those policies created? Or does your mind conveniently blank out at that point? Or do you consider those deaths as justifiable 'collateral damage' if Australia is to maintain its privileged lifestyle?"

Bronny, I'll have to seek clarification.

What deaths are you talking about? The deaths of people that would occur in the countries that onshore asylum seekers are coming from if they didn't have any option of heading across the world to Australia, via the very expensive and dangerous people-smuggling route? Or the deaths that might happen to those that have undertaken the trip, only to find a entry much harder when they get here than existed when they left?

What deaths and misery was created by Howard's policies? Oh, the misery of people being detained until their claims were sorted out. Is that what you mean? Yes there was misery there, compared to a situation of allowing all asylum seekers to move freely in our society until their claims were processed or just accepting them as permanent residents straight up....which of course would have been totally untenable because it would have led directly to a massively increased influx, which would have led to a massive public and political backlash and a very hard line being taken with all asylum seekers.

This is the point at which our discussions have stopped at least three times over the last four years on this forum - the point at which I ask: how could we possibly have treated onshore asylum seekers in the way that you wish without spurring an enormous increase in the number of arrivals?

Howard's policy was right. He strove to close our borders to this sort of movement, while dealing with those caught in the middle in a humane way while upholding a strong deterrence factor. The great majority of asylum seekers were accepted and onshore asylum seeking virtually ended.....until Rudd came along.

"Ludwig for the benefit of us all, and to claw back some credibility, please explain your obsession with boat people over the very real problem of over-population."

Fractelle, if you address the questions I asked you yesterday, I'll address your request.

.

"Fact is that the whole thing costs an absolute fortune, is not fair, nor safe, nor just, nor anything else. It just keeps dragging on, year after year. Those resources could help one hell of a lot more people, if spent wisely, which is not the case here. So the way to fix it, is to shut it down, once and for all, for good."

Well put Yabby.