Shocoholic- You will find that "Integration" is the only real option it serves your needs better than you think it may, trust me on that ! the only other option would be to have no immigration whatsoever and that would upset Australia's standing to the outside world, I know that we are limited in our resource capacity to sustain large numbers of immigrants but if have a policy that dissuades people from wanting to come to our shores because of changes that they will have to make to fit in then inherently the numbers will go down ! It is also interesting to note before Multiculturalism in the days of Integration there were no boat people, something you may wish to take on board .

trapdiocan,

Why hasn't Japan's international standing suffered because they have virtually zero immigration and virtually no refugees? We can do what is in our best interests on this. Ludwig is proposing zero net immigration (immigration = emigration), which means that the intake would vary from year to year, but emigration was about 83,000 last year, just counting Australian citizens.

Shockadelic actually has a point. Just as our globalist elite have been brilliant at bringing down fertility rates (by making people economically insecure, overcrowding them, and inflating the cost of their housing), they have also been brilliant at creating racism where it didn't exist before. The recipe is simple. You bring in migrants from the most incompatible culture that you can find, one with attitudes and customs that the host society is sure to find abhorrent, and vice versa. You import them in large numbers, so that they can congregate in particular areas, insulating them from the pressure to assimilate or go home, if they find the host society too offensive. Then you pit them against the existing residents in competition for inadequate supplies of jobs, housing, public services, and amenities. Voila, instant racism. It should be noted, though, that reducing the numbers would fix most of the problems. Nor is it a good idea to keep out very talented individuals, who will only be available in small numbers in any case, because of problems with their home culture, provided that they have been screened for security issues. As a general rule, though, it is best to bring in migrants who will find it easier to fit in, ones from countries that rank very high or high on the UN's Human Development Index.

Divergence-We signed unite nations treaties to accept immigrants, Japan did not ! In today's PC world and the risks of being labeled a racist country one has to be very very careful on any immigration policy they put forward "Integration" is a policy that avoids those types of problems ! The other benefit of Integration is then you can be more specific on what types of people you allow to immigrate depending on our needs as they happen without it being racially based ! their are many many skills that are only found in certain regions of the world with limited numbers ! so we choose those particular skills, it does not appear racist based and still retains the virtue of being politically correct ! It denies no one of any race color or social standing to immigrate to Australia as long as they fit the criteria !its win win !

Ludwig, we represent part of the problem.
Many people agree numbers need to drop, but disagree on exactly what to do.

Your emphasis on "refugees" I cannot agree with.

I think most people claiming refuge are not genuine.

Europe is much closer to the Middle East and Africa, with a dozen or more countries where asylum could be sort.

Why travel twice the distance to *one* isolated country?

And how desperate are you really, if you have $20,000 to pay a smuggler?
Why not pay Qantas $1000? Because you're hiding something?

trapdiocan, choosing mostly Very High immigrants makes "integration" virtually automatic.
These people already live in a society much like ours.

Who do you think will "integrate" easiest, a Swedish architect or a Tajik goat herder?

"upset Australia's standing to the outside world"

So would *any* limitation, no matter how justified.

Too bad for the rest of the world.
Do you honestly think there'd be any kind of boycott/embargo over this?

"a policy that dissuades people from wanting to come to our shores because of changes that they will have to make to fit in then inherently the numbers will go down!"

Really? The fact we are a European/Western country doesn't seem to deter the 80% of our current intake from non-European ancestry.

Choosing mostly Very High will also "inherently" make numbers go down, as these countries are on the same level as us, with much the same opportunities.

So little incentive to move.

"the risks of being labeled a racist country... without it being racially based!"

Again, who cares about other people's reactions.
This is *our* future we're concerned about.

A policy based on HDI has no "racial" basis whatsoever, even if it indirectly favours Whites.
It is quite easy to argue its rationale is not race.

"as long as they fit the criteria"

Now you have to evaluate millions of applicants, increasing bureaucratic costs.

The criteria may also change, making past rejected applicants (with the same now-in-demand skills) furious, seeking legal compensation.

Restriction to Very High could be open movement (like New Zealand) eliminating much of the bureaucracy.

Divergence "Nor is it a good idea to keep out very talented individuals, who will only be available in small numbers in any case, because of problems with their home culture"

The problem there is it creates a precedent.
"You accepted him, why not me?"

A ban on an entire country due to HDI classification/value is a position no individual applicant can question, or challenge in appeals for years.

Yes, that may exclude some excellent people, but as you note, there are few of them.

Perhaps they can use another country as a stepping stone (e.g. become a French citizen, then apply for Australia).

One thing I haven't touched on is where exactly to draw the line.

Some of those High countries are a bit questionable (Lebanon, Bosnia, Saudi Arabia?)

Australia's HDI value is 0.938.
The world average is 0.694.
The half way point between is therefore 0.816 (Portugal!).

This limit would exclude some Very High (Latvia, Argentina, Seychelles, Croatia) and every other level.

<< Many people agree numbers need to drop, but disagree on exactly what to do. >>

Yes Shocka, and if a political party was to put forward a proposal for reducing immigration by a big amount, I’m sure there would be enormous support from the general populace. In fact this could be a real election winner!

Before the last Federal election I was calling on Labor to embrace a big cut to immigration, in line with Gillard’s ‘sustainable Australia, not a big Australia’ comments. Labor was set to lose the election by a big margin, so they had nothing to lose. I reckon if they’d done it they would have kept power. But alas, they couldn’t see their way clear to do it.

<< Your emphasis on "refugees" I cannot agree with. I think most people claiming refuge are not genuine. >>

I’m talking about drawing ALL refugees that we resettle in Australia from our offshore programs of international aid and refugee assistance, where we can see that they are genuine refugees.

We would choose exactly who comes to this country, on the basis of who is the most needy. There wouldn’t be any claims for refugee status, let alone non-genuine ones.