*Our government needs to be far more focussed on manufacturing for our long term security and this will take people*

Csteele, if that is what you are after, then you need more intelligent
people, not more people. Already most of the people in the East,
cannot compete globally in manufacturing, so they spend their time
building new houses for migrants! That is exactly why the Govt keeps
the migration rates high.

As for agriculture, two thirds is exported, so that feeds quite
a few million. But it takes water. We've already virtually shut
down the rice industry, due to lack of water.

Yes indeed, Iran has turned its fertility rate around dramatically,
unlike how things were just 30 years ago. That does not mean that
there are not plenty of third world countries, where they still
pop them out like rabbits. Most of sub Saharan Africa for instance.

Then of course we have the religious nuts, like those west bank
settlers trying to outbreed the arabs and visa versa. Then the
Catholics encouraging ever more babies. In places like Afghanistan,
the Middle East, large sections of Africa, there are plenty of
people with huge families.

Australia has to ask itself, what the sustainable population for
our country is. Australians have to ask themselves, if they
really want to be crammed into human zoos, aka high rise apartments,
like they do in other parts of the world.

We certainly don't have an obligation to trash our country, for what
will ultimately make no measurable difference, as the world keeps
popping out an extra 20 million, every 90 days.

The British House of Lords recently published a report on immigration.

See:

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/82.pdf

Some quotes from the conclusions:

"Immigration creates significant benefits for immigrants and their families, and, in some cases, also for immigrants’ countries of origin."

"Although possible in theory, we found no systematic empirical evidence to suggest that net immigration creates significant dynamic benefits for the resident population in the UK. This does not necessarily mean that such effects do not exist but that there is currently no systematic evidence for them and it is possible that there are also negative dynamic and wider welfare
effects"

"The available evidence suggests that immigration has had a small negative impact on the lowest-paid workers in the UK, and a small positive impact on the earnings of higher-paid workers."

"Resident workers whose wages have been adversely affected by immigration are likely to include a significant proportion of previous immigrants and workers from ethnic minority groups."

"The available evidence is insufficient to draw clear conclusions about the impact of immigration on unemployment in the UK. It is possible, ... that immigration adversely affects the employment opportunities of young people who are competing with young migrants .. More research is needed to examine the impact of recent immigration on unemployment among different groups of resident workers in the UK"

Summing it all up the available evidence for Britain suggests that

--The immigrants themselves and their home countries benefit

--For natives:

*--The "big end of town" reaps whatever may be the benefits

*--This is at the expense of mainly low-income and young natives

These findings, tentative as they are, are in line with my gut feel as regards the advantages and disadvantages of immigration in Australia.

The authors of the report state:

"...non-economic considerations such as impacts on cultural diversity and social cohesion will be important, but these are outside the scope of our inquiry."

However such effects should not be out of the scope of any enquiry on immigration in Australia.

Csteele

Glad you liked the link.

Like you I would like to see Australia less dependent on commodities exports. How one establishes a high tech manufacturing base in a small isolated country with a volatile currency is a non-trivial question. I have no easy answers. However I am going to risk the wrath of Examinator by pointing to Israel as a possible role model.

See:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KHLyANGmLjQ

The youtube segment is a review of a book called "Startup Nation" which describes Israel's success in establishing an innovative high tech manufacturing industry.

See also

http://www.amazon.com/Start-up-Nation-Israels-Economic-Miracle/dp/044654146X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1258091629&sr=1-1


I've ordered the book but it won’t get here for a few weeks.

What is not apparent from the youtube segment is this:

--The Israeli Government decided 42 YEARS ago to focus on high technology

--For a relatively poor country they poured massive resources into fostering a culture of science and research. Relative to GDP Israel spends roughly twice as much on R&D as most OECD countries

--It took 30 YEARS before the benefits became apparent

Can you see any Australian Government of whatever stripe having that degree of foresight and determination?

You may find the remarks on immigration in the youtube snippet of interest.

OK Examinator, I'll bet you never saw that one coming on this thread :-D Feel free to weight in with the nefarious Zionist plot motif.

Well Csteele the globalisation and international
trade in the long term are on a hiding to nothing.
I know that Steven is well aware of this.
As energy depletion, oil, coal and gas take effect localisation will
be the major activity and international trade if it survives at all
will be in compact high value goods and certainly not people.

Unfortunately the time scale may be such that the politicians could do
a lot of damage with high levels of immigration in that time.
We are committed to tariff free trade so we cannot build factories, we
have to be taking in each other washing until globalisation fails.
We are stuck with it until that time.