Dear Divergence,

Prof. James Jupp, Australia's Immigration Authority
tells us that, "Australia's fertility rate fell below
replacement in 1976 and has never recovered. On the
example of all other developed societies, it
is never likely to. On the other hand, it is still well
above the level of Japan, Italy, Spain and most
European states. Population is increasing, in contrast to
Russia where it is actually falling. In the longer term
Australia can expect its population to peak, within
twenty years and then to decline, unless sustained by a
robust immigration program."

"The process of ageing will also increase the proportion
dependent on pensions and savings making the heaviest
demands on helath services. Immigration cannot prevent
this without massive additions. But it can provide increased
numbers in the working ages to support the dependent elderly."

"The impact of ageing and decline is already apparent in
South Australia and Tasmania and is a source of concern to their
governments. While life in Adelaide may be comfortable
and Tasmania is a rural paradise, both states have consistently
had the highest unemployment levels in Australia for many
years. Consequently they lose younger people to the
metropolitan cities, exacerbating the effects of population
stagnation. Attempts to reverse the situation in these two
States by special visa provision have had only marginal
effects. Nor have they benefited from temporary migration,
which might have increased their labour force. As models of
zero population growth they are not very reassuring."

"By 2002 most interested parties were turning their backs on
zero population growth. The Population Summit, called by
the Victorian government in February 2002, saw a remarkable
degree of agreement that declining fertility was a problem
requiring public policies to sustain population growth..."

Anyway you get the idea. There's much more on this subject
that deals with future stabilisation - all I can suggest is
that you get hold of a copy on this subject by Prof. James
Jupp from your local library. It is worth a read.

Or you can continue to slag off at me on this forum.
Your choice.

Just another academic and there are others with different opinions for guvvy grants.

Wasn't it academics who convinced the population of the need to ZPG in the first place? Some here would remember the extensive scare campaign about finite resources, especially water and food, and the maps showing the amount of Australia that was unsuitable for agriculture.

Has Australia's geography changed since?

It is amazing that Foxy and others who are adamant about global warming, which academics also say will reduce the available farming land and water supplies, are also unrelenting supporters of mass migration. Compartmentalised thinking of those who are so bigoted against against our 'white' inheritance and traditions, including democracy it would seem, that they require endless diversity to obliterate their hated 'nullaboring' 'whites'.

While Foxy et al like to pretend that anyone who is critical of their 'open door' immigration policies is against all migration, and assert that Australians are racist xenophobes for asking for some say in it, it is a fact that policies like Rudd's 'Big Australia' and open door for people smuggling are electorally highly unpopular.

It is going to be a very long six years for some, and another six after that if Labor continues to be led by the nose by the political 'Progressives' aka International Socialists who have staged a successful takeover of its structure. That was to the chagrin of Labor supporters who have been formally denied any say. The self-described wolves in sheep's clothing, the 'Progressives', corrupted and formalised the leadership vote to warp the value of Labor members votes.

The political 'Progressives' who control Labor presume to always know what is best for everyone. That is Labor members votes should not matter and nor should the result of the last federal election. That is the 'Progressives' and their International Socialist agenda.

Foxy,

The problem with the ageing argument is that migrants grow old too, just like everyone else, and they cannot be deported once they have outlived their value to the economy. What happens when the migrants also need pensions and healthcare? Do we then take in still more migrants, now that we have an even bigger aged population? Where do you see the process ending? At standing room only? A number of countries with very low or no population growth, such as Germany, Japan, and Finland are still on the UN's very high human development list and also tend to be have less inequality.

By the way, I was opposing massive population growth, not a bit of net immigration to top up a population to keep it at an optimum level when the fertility rate is too low, although I question whether this would really be necessary. Very low fertility rates are associated with economic insecurity, overcrowding, and high housing costs, all exacerbated by high population growth. See the demographer Joel Kotkin on this. Desired family size is high enough in Australia to stabilize the population without net immigration. See

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/resreport11/aspirations.html

The real reason that high population growth is being pushed is because it is in the interests of the 1%. They get bigger domestic markets, rentier profits form ownership of residential land and other necessities, and a cheap, compliant work force that they don't even have to train if the growth is from immigration. They are insulated by their wealth from the harm they are doing, unless they actually care about other species going extinct. You are acting as their cheerleader.

Foxy, at least I write my own comments.
I don't just copy-paste other people's words.

As for the aging, pensions and unemployment argument, pensions are paid by the Federal government, so it doesn't really matter how much employment or unemployment there is in any state or region.

Pensions are paid from taxes collected nationwide.
Taxes can apply to any financial events, not just salaries.

We will not need the same number of workers in the future, as more and more "work" is done by machines and computers.

The businesses operating those machines will still be generating wealth though and can be taxed (to pay the pensions).

The only way immigrants would affect aging is if they were substantially lower in age than the general population.
That is not the case.
Nor do we refuse entry to persons over the age of, say, 35.

And even if those economic arguments were correct, it still doesn't mean we need to select dissimilar/unrelated people (i.e. non-Europeans, currently 80% of intake) to be the new workers/taxpayers.

And as for your repeated assertions you will leave this or other discussions:
Imagine we're approaching a future election.
Just prior, there are several front-page incidents involving minority violence. (It will happen one day, trust me.)

The election issue becomes pro or anti "diverse" immigration.
The pro side quote the usual propaganda/platitudes, snub and scoff, evade and mock.
Then "disappear" ("I'm so over this!") days before the election.

Who do think will win?

Dear Divergence,

A pleasure to read your most recent post - and
of course you do raise some very valid points.
I certainly don't have all the answers (that's why
I do tend to go to the experts - occupational habit),
and when I've finished reading Prof. Jupp's various
chapters on the subject I'll let you know what he has
to say from his expertise.

Prof. Jupp is Director for
Immigration and Multiculturalism Studies at the
Australian National University. His many publications include -
as general editor, "The Australian People: An Encyclopedia
of the Nation, its People and their Origins,"
"From White Australia to Woomera: The Story of Australian
Immigration," and quite a few more.

However, I found that his last book mentioned above
of great use. Both by myself and students.
In it James Jupp, Australia's leading specialist on
migration, surveys the changes in policy over the last three
decades since the seismic shift away from the White
Australia Policy.

Along the way he outlines the history of Australian immigration,
campares the achievements of the Fraser, Hawke and Keating
governments and considers the establishment of the
"institutions" of multiculturalism and ethnicity.
Jupp looks critically at the ways economic rationalism,
the rise of Pauline Hanson and One Nation, and the
population debate, have impacted upon migration choices.
The issue of refugees and asylum seekers is also covered in
great depth.

It's a useful read.

Foxy,

Both you and the good Professor left out the effect of Islamic terrorism, general belief in the Qur'an and a proclivity of some Muslims to have multiples of wives and consequently many children, particularly where child rearing gets a tax-payer funded subsidy .