If we had an expert to look in to why we posted as we did in this single thread, expose our thoughts.
It would show,we all have taken stands, probably based on our understanding, or failure to understand, the implications.
Content to know/think I know, less than 10% of this country are ready to stall growth.
And even less would let onthebeach get away with his comment that the birthrate will grow? out standing!
Hidden in some, is the view not about numbers, but stopping migration, lets be honest.
America is what it is,still the worlds leading economy, because of migration, it continues to grow.
I think the implications of no population growth,at this point in history, defeats, common sense, it would kill our economy reduce housing prices de value just about every thing, who would pay to run the country in the midst of decreasing work force..
And the not to be ignored blame game here, is not changing truth.

From the UK House of Lords Select Committee on Economics:

<Immigration has become highly significant to the UK economy: immigrants comprise 12% of the total workforce—and a much higher proportion in London. However, we have found no evidence for the argument, made by the Government, business and many others, that net immigration—immigration minus emigration—generates significant economic benefits for the existing UK population>

and

<Against this background, we have identified the following priorities for Government action. The Government should:

- improve radically the present entirely inadequate migration statistics;
- review its immigration policies and then explain, on the basis of firm evidence on the economic and other impacts, the reasons for and objectives of the policies, and how they relate to other policy objectives such as improving the skills of the domestic workforce;
- better enforce the minimum wage and other statutory employment conditions, with effective action taken against employers who illegally employ immigrants or who provide employment terms which do not meet minimum standards;
- clarify the objectives and implications of the new, partially points-based immigration system. It is far from clear that the new arrangements will in fact constitute the radical overhaul of the present system suggested by the Government;
- monitor immigration by publishing periodic Immigration Reports giving details of the numbers and characteristics of non-EEA nationals entering the UK under each Tier of the new system;
- give further consideration to which channels of immigration should lead to settlement and citizenship and which ones should be strictly temporary;
- review the implications of its projection that overall net immigration in future years will be around 190,000 people. The Government should have an explicit and reasoned indicative target range for net immigration and adjust its immigration policies in line with that broad objective.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200708/ldselect/ldeconaf/82/8203.htm

to be continued..

continued..

However the Australian Department of Immigration spruiks for immigration in these words:

<Economic

Immigration affects the demand side of Australia's economy through:

- migrants' own spending (food, housing and leisure activities)
business expansion (investment to produce extra goods and services)
expansion of government services (health, education and welfare).

It also affects the supply side of the economy through:

- labour, skills and capital introduced into Australia
- new businesses developed by migrants
- migrant contributions to technology
- adding productive diversity through knowledge of international business markets.

Like all Australians, migrants pay taxes to, and receive benefits and goods and services from the government. Research shows that overall, migrants contribute more in taxes than they consume in benefits and government goods and services. As a result migrants generate surpluses for government.

Australia's economic growth is significantly enhanced as migrants directly affect the economy through their contribution to supply and demand and their indirect contribution to government surpluses>

Where is the proof for each claim?

When will the immigration policies of government be put to a popular vote?

- Because the Australian population, which already includes significant 'diversity through' migrant numbers, is overwhelmingly against high inflows of migrants. Apart from their own personal interest in more of their own (often aged and unwell) relatives joining them, migrants are opposed to immigration.

Julia Gillard promised a stop to the 'Big Australia' policies of Rudd. But Julia Gillard has set immigration targets higher than any year since 1945. That is at odds with her firm promise and commitment. It is not what Australians say they want.

Is this a democracy or not?

Thanks but I am leaving.
The thread no longer trys to hide, for some it is an anti migration thing.
Common sense has been stretched by claims like onthebeaches ones so have fun.

Now you insult the UK House of Lords Select Committee on Economics? It asked questions that are pertinent to Australia too.

You asked for facts so I went to the trouble to find the report for you and to make the obvious comparison with the government policy and spin the Australian Department of Immigration is being required to publish on behalf of the Gillard/Greens government.

You will see that the report even questions the BS spin that immigration will pay for the Boomers' pensions.

It is time that you recognised the obvious, which is that a large rump of those retirees are migrants too. No offence to them of course. Many migrants fled countries where government spin was commonplace and the wishes of the people are continually ignored.

The polite thing to do Belly would be to present any facts you might have to dispel the Select Committee's report.