Ludwig,
I don't think you and I are all that far apart on both immigration and refugee issues.
Statistically our population is growing older. the result of both improvements in areas of health and diet etc coupled with a low birth rate. that seems to be self evident. With more elderly in society that's an issue in itself that has to be addressed. Pressures on the health system, and other services for the elderly, issues with employment, pensions and super for older Australians, the area of taxation, who pays for this and at what level etc it all costs. As a 58 year old I can tell you age discrimination is alive and well in Australia. Only 12 months ago I returned to the workforce after 2 years off, my choice, (not unemployed by out seeing a bit of the World) and I did come up against age discrimination, fortunately for me I had skills that were in demand, soon back working part time 25-30 hrs a week.
Its not realistic to believe Australia can embrace a closed door nil immigration policy or return to a totally discriminatory policy, ie the White Australia Policy, although there is a ratbag element in society who think these are possibilities. The latter would bring World condemnation upon us and the former condemnation and punitive action from trading partners etc, a case of telling the likes of China, "You can buy our raw materials, but your people are not welcome here."
cont.

I think immigration does have a nett effect of reducing the average age the population, but not by much, months not years. The problem to me is the size of yearly immigration. I do not think 169k at this time is a sustainable number, but that is only my personal view. Who is out to profit the most from high levels of immigration? Answer, Big Business. I do not think I have to go into the reasons that BB profits from high immigration, they should be self evident, particularly if BB can negate any taxation responsibility in relation to immigration, which they seems to do very well indeed.
No matter how you look at it refugees form a very small component of our total migration, and 'boat people' are only a small proportion of 'illegal' persons in Australia. No one talks much about 'over stayers' people who arrive on a 'jumbo jet' for a short term stay but remain long term often working illegally using services they are not entitled to. etc. To these 'over stayers' we can add those who arrive with a legitimate reason such as a education purposes, but then work illegally. I will post my views on off shore processing and mandatory detentions later.

"my garden is progressing well, the bottle bush now close to 7 meters in flower again.
The best flowers talk,screech in fact eastern Rosella's and scaly breasted.
Others too.
White tipped black cockatoos join in as they fly over morning and just before dark.
Pink and Grey galas hang upside down on the front power lines so I am used to galas D O
Posted by Belly, Thursday, 19 April 2012 5:03:09 AM"

Belly, have you turned into a raving Greenie! Where's the profit in that bush thing and how do you make money out of those scrawny birds.
Got the answer. Chop down the tree and sell it to the pulp mill to be turned into cardboard to be used in in 'fag factory'. Shoot them birds, and sell their scrawny carcases to the Colonel, when cooked it all tastes like chicken. From the profits I want to spread bitumen over that garden thing and turn it into a car park for DD semi trailers, charging 50 bucks a day for parking. LOL.
Seriously, good to hear your garden is doing so well. As I say these things have an incalculable value and are worth more than a gold mine. Although some would disagree, their belief being, if you can't dig it up or chop it up, if you can't make a quid from it, it has no value. They are the poorer for their belief. Good on yah!

Paul 1405.

<<Its not realistic to believe Australia can embrace a closed door nil immigration policy or return to a totally discriminatory policy...The latter would bring World condemnation upon us and the former condemnation and punitive action from trading partners etc,>>

Yep, Paul, you are a typical Green. You like to pretend you are worldly-wise --but you really have NO IDEA about the situation outside OZ

China & Japan rank respectively as our number 1 & 2 “trading partners”. Would you care to tell me about their open door immigration policies ?

How about Singapore at number 4, or South Korea at number No 6 ?
Would you care to tell us about their open door immigration policies?

How about Malaysia that comes in at number 10, care to tell us about how they are welcoming of “refugees”?

On what basis would any of these have to implement “ punitive action” !

And then you make this clanger:
<< No one talks much about 'over stayers' people who arrive on a 'jumbo jet' for a short term stay but remain long term often working illegally using services they are not entitled to. etc. >>

EVERYTIME anything is said about illegal immigration this hoary olde “Theyre doing it too” chestnut is thrown in.
And EVERYTIME it is debunked –please go back a review some earlier OLO threads on this subject

A little bit less Green’s catechism and a great deal more real world experience --please!

SPQR,

When did Australia embrace the 'open door' policy? We have a controlled immigration policy. Open door implies 'the hoards are coming' and they are not coming from Liechtenstein, are they? More of the yellow peril on their way. Of the 169K immigrants in 2010/11, if you had been in charge what figure would you allow into Australia?
Australia's net immigration stands at about 6 to 7 per 1000 of population a comparable country Canada is around 5 to 6. New Zealand has a net of around 2 to 3 per 1000. Shock Afghanistan around 20 per 1000 and none of them are 'boat people', must be all the Americans landing in the country. SPQR have to compare apples to apples Japan, China?

Paul 1405,

Nice sidestep Paul 1405!

<<SPQR have to compare apples to apples Japan, China?>>

Let me remind you as to how China and Japan entered the discussion:
You were pontificating that if Australia tightened its immigration policy It would the subject to “ punitive actions” from our trading partners.Now, it so happens that our two biggest trading partners are China and Japan –neither of which have anything like a liberal (or Green!) immigration policy.So it would be highly unlikely, and ultra hypocritical, for either of the aforementioned (and most of our other top trading partners –for that matter) to raise a whimper about any restrictions we might impose.

I take it from your having sidestepped my earlier points/questions about that comment that you now concede that it was baloney .

<< We have a controlled immigration policy.>>

We have feeble immigration "controls" (ROFL): we cannot stop illegals from boating-in from wherever or whenever.And as long as they claim to be from one of the countries which is currently on the top-of-the-pops hot list They are almost assured of getting asylum

And your party's harebrained scheme to widen the definition of refugee to include "climate victims" will make the problem much much worse.