con't
Based on the information at hand I fail to see how Australia's immigration policy is unreasonable, unless you want to take the attitude any immigration, is bad immigration. Divergence, you describe Australia's population growth as being "enormously high" I wouldn't agree with that, but that is the line you hold, so be it. I did say earlier, migrants are not without their problems, some do bring "baggage", some more that others, but I don't think those problems are sufficient to justify the total rejection of any one people or group of people. I much prefer we work in a positive fashion to accommodate immigrants, and those with problems, that we help work through those problems, if all else fails after due process of law, then yes there is the door, and I would not be adverse to showing it to some individuals, if and when it became necessary! That is my last resort, but not my first resort.

Paul,

The 1.8% population growth rate that we have, nearly 75% due directly or indirectly to immigration, will double our population in 38 years and 6 months, and it will keep doubling it at this rate indefinitely. This means 139 million people by 2114 and 842 million people by 2214, right up there with India and China. 1.8% is much higher than the global average of 1.14%, so we are growing faster than most of the Third World as well as the other rich countries. If this isn't enormously high, what would be?

Divergence,

Our population growth is coming off a relatively low base of 23M where as countries like China and India although lower, percentage wise, are already at exceeding high levels of population. Raw percentages on there own do not draw a true picture, and it is a stretch to extrapolate 100 and 200 years into the future, WWIII wiped out 37 billion alone, lol. Population growth is not locked into any set figure, or pattern,given the parameters it is forced into, it is adjustable to a degree. Countries with zero or negative growth also encounter problems, not the least, an aging population, I think you would be familiar with what that entails. It should be of great concern to the world the pressures on the plant through population growth.
If you were the government for a day, what would you do on this issue?

Paul,
This thread has changed direction several times and now has gone onto immigration policy.

Do you believe that accepting some alien practices is the price we pay for non selective immigration and multicultural policies? Just what should we accept and what to reject? In other words should we not allow persons of some groups that have demonstrated to us that they will not/cannot integrate even after 3 or more generations.

It is apparent that some groups hold their original culture well above that of our laws and social standards. I do not believe we can tolerate this and we should not be expected to spend our resources to counter alien cultural practices and protect our citizens.

For example, following the recent arrest of a person for underage sex and marriage offences, it was disclosed by the Immigrant Women's Health Service that hundreds of girls have been sent overseas for underage marriage. This was confirmed by a body set up to give young people legal advice. This is not acceptable and the only way is to stop immigration of those groups that condone this. Why should we continue to spend millions on education about FGM when continued influx of persons refreshes the alien ingrained practice.

Just where do you think we should draw the line? Are you happy with turning a blind eye to some alien activities?

Paul,

Every country will have to get used to a stable age structure (unless it collapses), with the generations of approximately equal sizes up to extreme old age, which means more old people. Trying to keep young by immigration is a Ponzi scheme, because you just end up with even more old people later on. Children are actually a lot more dependent than old people, and you get a smaller percentage of them with a stable age structure. Germany and a number of other European countries have had decent economic growth rates and are on the UN's very high human development list despite having ageing populations. There is only a real problem when the fertility rate goes below 1.5.

If it were up to me, I would move towards stabilising the population now, as was recommended by the Australian Academy of Science in 1994. The business class would be told that the party is over and that immigration would be reduced progressively year by year down to zero net, which would currently mean about 80 thousand immigrants a year. I would withdraw from the Refugee Convention, but still take the same number of refugees from offshore, giving preference to political refugees who worked for reform in their own countries, not to the losers when two overly fecund ethnic groups duke it out over an inadequate pile of resources. I would end the open borders agreement with New Zealand, unless they want to go for political union, where we would have some say on their immigration policy. Currently, they are offshoring a lot of their unemployment problem and providing a stepping stone for migrants who want to move on to Australia.

Divergence,

Any chance of persuading you to run for parliament?

I mean if Clive Palmer can speak gooblegook and still garner 5% of the vote.
And if the Greens can speak double-gooblegook and still garner 4%.
Someone with your wit and wisdom should win in a landslide.