There seems to be an assumption by the "stabilize our population" brigade that there is just a single pie available, and if we all keep quite still and don't grow any more, we can keep taking the same sized slice of pie and all be happy ever after.

But it isn't quite like that. We all get older, for one thing, so there will never be a "stable state".

But let's give a moment's consideration to the proposition that population stability is a desirable goal.

How would this be achieved?

Assuming that one ingredient would be "stop immigration", what would be the remaining requirements?

Limit the number of offspring, perhaps.

Who would be "allowed" to procreate, and who forbidden? Would we be issued at birth with a voucher for 2.18 children (or whatever the sustainability factor is), and be imprisoned for overachievement?

Would we perhaps be allowed to trade our unwanted "offspring tickets" on the open market?

Who would police this, and what penalties would apply?

I, for one, would be out of here like a shot, even though I am unlikely to further trouble the scorer, progeny-wise. Can you imagine the kind of police state that would be needed to support such a policy?

So even if we were to say "no more immigration", the proposition is against every kind of civil freedom that have been fought for over millennia.

It has to be said also that a total closing of the doors will attract all sorts of unwanted attention. Let me predict just a couple of outcomes of such an inward-looking and selfish policy.

The level of illegal immigration will rise dramatically, creating an exploited underclass, as the USA has been experiencing for many years.

The likelihood of economic sanctions, even open aggression against us, will increase, as we advertise to the world our adherence to the ancient British slogan "I'm all right, Jack".

I'd prefer to live in an open, generous and innovative country, for whom a problem such as this is seen as a challenge to be met and overcome, rather than one to flee from.

I am suprised

check my immigration policy

www.tapp.org.au

Pericles, do you accept that immigration should be for the benefit of the people already here? To censure those opposing the ridiculously high current levels of immigration is like arguing that a passenger already on board a lifeboat should refrain from pointing out that taking on more will cause it to capsize. 140,000+ people per year (the population of Townsville every year) is excessive by international standards, even with the self-inflicted skills shortage.

"So even if we were to say "no more immigration", the proposition is against every kind of civil freedom that have been fought for over millennia."

Absolute piffle. In fact, I would argue that to ignore the dangers of high immigration violates every notion of government accountability and responsibility to the people of Australia. By your definition, every nation in the world other than Australia, Canada and the United States must be "inward-looking" and "selfish" based upon their immigration intake levels.

Oligarch makes an excellent point in calling for real examples to support claims. Zimbabwe would meet many of Pericles' criteria for a jackbooted police state, though the regime has had support from it's near neighbours. But I would really like to see a description of how Japan is hated internationally, is an economic basket basket case, and a social and cultural Hicksville as a result of its citizen's opposition to high immigration.

I never see high immigration being advocated for the purpose of undercutting wages, maintaing inflated housing costs, and allowing huge profits to be derived from the sale of shoddy constructions, yet I suspect this to be the main reason. If the costs to the population are greater than the profits derived from high immigration, then those profits are essentially parasitic. The evidence so far supports this view.

>>Pericles, do you accept that immigration should be for the benefit of the people already here?<<

Good question.

I accept that immigration *policy* should be determined by the people who live here. And I believe that that policy should reflect our willingness to belong to a wider community of countries, rather than sit here on our own contemplating our overfed navels.

I would point out that of the folk who have immigrated into Australia over the past two hundred years, not one of them came in order to make their lives worse. Improving their lot in life was their overriding priority, and one that was respected and accepted by those already here.

Except for the very first Europeans, of course. They just said to hell with it, this is where we want to live. Right?

At what point did we all suddenly become parochial and inward looking? We are all either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. It is not as if you can suddenly decide that ok, this lot have been here long enough to stay, and that's it. The world simply doesn't work that way.

We are whether we like it or not a part of the world around us, and we cannot simply shut your eyes to this reality and hope it will go away.

“…there will never be a stable state".

It depends how you define it Pericles. My vision of a stable state is one with a dynamic balance between resource demand and provision where the overall extent of demand is well within the ability of the environment to support it. A stable state certainly doesn’t imply stagnation.

How would we achieve population stability?

Very easily in Australia, by reducing immigration to net zero or less. With our current fertility rate, the population will stabilize of its own accord in about 40 years. Of course, we should also demand the abolition of the awful baby bonus and perhaps the implementation of financial incentives designed to have the opposite effect.

It is very easy in Australia. But of course vastly more difficult in many other countries and the world overall.

Your fears of a loss of civil freedom due to population control in our country are unfounded. The opposite is true; rapid population growth will lead directly to the implementation of ever-more restrictions and the reduction of freedom.

The immigration doors wouldn’t be closed entirely. In fact with net zero immigration, we could still accommodate 30 000 or more per annum.

What would you like to see us do with respect to immigration Pericles? Would you like us to just continue to have an intake of the order we have now? Would you like our borders to be entirely open? Do you think it is ok to allow huge numbers of people into southeast Queensland, Perth, Sydney, Melbourne, etc when there are clear and ominous problems with water supply?