According to Michael Pascoe at crikey.com.au, Australia’s real immigration numbers will approach 300,000 next financial year. This would mean that Australia overtakes Canada as the country with the highest per capita immigration rate in the world.

Read the article here:

http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20070517-Immigration-numbers-on-way-to-300000-next-year-but-lets-not-publicise-it-.html

In the UK, high immigration levels are being met with outright anger from the British public. Contrast this to Australia where the public are sleepwalking through the biggest wave of migration this ancient land has ever experienced.

that's characteristic of oligarchy, oligarch- the rulers do as they please without consulting the political cattle they rule. did you think you were one of the rulers before now? if you don't like suddenly realizing you're in the 'cattle' class, change your handle to 'democrat' and join me in calling for a democratic republic of australia.

or stop complaining when you get what you, and most ozzies, deserve.

Demos, good points mate, but, I don't believe as you apparently do, that there is such a thing as a workable 'democratic republic' which would be less subject to the same pressures from vested interests as our current system.

We would only be changing the pigs at the food trough. Not at first of course :) The 'newly triumphant revolutionaries' are always pure for the first year or 2 as they are establishing 'Day zero' but as time goes by, and they realize "Hey... we have quite a bit of power here.. why waste it on 'cattle'"

Hence, I take a different approach, that of making a "prophetic call"
Only as a mere echo I should add, of all the voices of the prophets who have been 'real'.

If you have some time on your hands, I recommend a reading of the book of Isaiah, you could also go a bit further, and make the historical connections to specific kings, and see more of their deeds and misdeeds in Kings and Chronicles.

The best we can hope for, is politicians/leaders who will respond to concience which is pricked by the annoying prophetic voice.
If you can point to some society which provides a reliable, enduring alternative, be my guest :)

IMMIGRANTS FROM UK ? One thing we should be scrutinizing VERY closely, is the number of UK migrants who are in fact ethnically Indian, and possibly Muslim. Each time I've travelled from Vermont South to Melbourne CBD by tram I have been amazed and the HUGE numbers of ethnic Indians who are on the trams. It's almost 'spot the Asian' because 'white' Australians are virtually non existant.

I'll say it again:

IMMIGRATION MUST ALWAYS take "cultural/racial/reliigous identity and cohesian into account"

This means that numbers of specific ethnic groups should be limited such that no one group achieves a dominant position. A good spread of many is MUCH more preferable than a preponderance of one, with the obvious exception of the already existing majority who actually define the cultural/racial texture/fabric of this great country.

Your posts have some interesting echoes, Boaz, that I thought you might like to be aware of. You say, inter alia...

>>IMMIGRATION MUST ALWAYS take "cultural/racial/reliigous identity and cohesian into account"<<

Here's an excerpt from the election manifesto of a political party in England:

"...we are committed to caring for and nurturing all sections of our national community. We also oppose the tendency of the other, non-nationalist, parties to set different sections of the community against each other over problems for which they themselves as politicians are largely responsible. The creation and maintenance of an undercurrent of national solidarity is one of the cornerstones of a true national democracy"

Sounds very familiar, and quite reassuring, doesn't it?

There's heaps more like this on the website of the British National Party, of whom it has been said:

"They are populists whose politics change like the wind. If the public is concerned with asylum, the BNP will exploit the issue. When Islamic fundamentalists commit terrorist attacks, suddenly all Muslims are to blame for the world’s ills. No matter what problems exist in this country, someone else is always to blame"

and

"Recently Mark Collett, leader of the young BNP was shown by channel 4’s Despatches to be an out and out Nazi sympathiser: 'National Socialism was the best solution for the German people in the 1930s', he told the cameras. 'I honestly cant understand how a man who’s seen the inner city hell of Britain today cant look back on that era [Hitler’s Germany] with a certain nostalgia'."

You can see my concerns, can't you?

However you pretty it up, you are a part of a rabble-rousing minority, inciting your fellow-citizens to take action against what you see as a major threat to its tranquillity. You use all the same arguments, all the same reassurances that you are merely concerned about our safety, all the same disclaimers.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...

You do see my point, don't you?

Don't you?

But without immigrants who will do all the crap jobs that are beneath white Australia? Mexicans are doing wonders for the American economy. I sure would like an housemaid to work in my household for the very generous wage of $5 an hour. How great would that be!

Besides, most of them are probably Kiwis trying to escape that bananna republics woefull economy

Yep, that has stuffed my Sunday evening! 300 000 per annum. Holy s…!

Currently we are the second highest immigrant-accepting country on a per-capita basis and this would take us to the highly esteemed world’s first position…… and practically no one gives a hoot!

Such an extraordinarily obvious absurdity in the face of the national water crisis.

Such an extraordinarily obvious contradiction of magnanimous proportions when it comes to the message that we need to reduce fossil fuel consumption / greenhouse gas production.

Such an extraordinarily obvious antisustainability policy…at a time when directing this country onto a sustainable base is of the utmost importance.

What the hell is our government doing? And more pertinently, what the hell is the Australia populace doing by accepting this situation with barely a whimper against it?

Oligarch and Ludwig,
Of course I agree entirely. With the current water situation, our choking cities and lack of infastructure we should be in a period of zero net immigration. As you say the more people, the more greenhouse gas emissions as well.

Ludwig, you ask "What is the Government doing?" Good question and I ask what is the Opposition doing? Shouting 'ME TOO'. Obviously both major parties are in the pockets of big business. So they do what big business wants (more sales) and to hell with what is best for Australia.

Why do both major parties avoid putting forward a population policy? I suggest that should be the basis of any immigration policy.

We really need to wake up quick but what does it tke to get people motivated.

Dont forget the complicity of the national newpapers in this,after all,more people more newspapers sold, higher profits.

Newspapers are big business. In my neck of the woods they really havent made too much noise about the new IR laws either. After all if they can reduce wages by using contracts and imported workers, it means even higher profits.

THE ROCK-: "I sure would like a mexican housemaid to work in my household for a very generous $5.00hour.

OK Rock I've got a job for you cleaning up the dirt and slop around my house for a very generous $5.00 and hour. Bit lower than what your earn an hour now isnt it? But you dont mind a bit of exploitation do you? Slavery included? $zero is not far off $5.00 an hour,after all I'm sure you wouldnt split hairs about the difference.

Would you also like a civil war on your doorstep like the Americans are going to have when the cheap black slave labour they imported
outnumbers them in 50years and the whites dont want to hand over their country at the ballot box.

Brother Pericles, your attempt at wise counsel is noted. (as is your 'rabble-rousing' :)

1/ You use an unsourced quote which states that the BNP 'blames all muslims for the worlds troubles' when it suits them.

2/ Try to 'tar' me with that brush.

Good try. the most effective propoganda (and_rabble_rousing:) is that where MOST of it is quite true and believable, but the little bits of untruth are also sent in like a virus attachment to a long email.

Clearly, I am in full agreement with the BNP in your first quote.

You second one is more dodgy.. "Of whom it has been said"..... now thats outright scurrulous, as it could have been said by their worst political enemy for purely political reasons.

Your 3rd quote is of more concern. I have no sympathy whatsoever for National Socialism, and if any wolfish party used that as a foundation for its political direction under the 'sheepskin' of populist language, then I also have grave reservations.

The most important point to come back at you on is the 'of whom it has been said' bit, where it mentioned "Suddenly All Muslims are the problem". I've not said that to my recollection. I've said the opposite "Some" Muslims, who are "Quranic" are a serious threat.
I've blamed "Islam" as a religion, and have gone to pains to point out that while most Muslims are "decent, hardworking and just getting on with life and family" (to quote another source) I've always maintained

a) that it is the radicals who are the problem.
b) That Radicals can have much more impact than their actual numbers would otherwise suggest.
c) That prior to admitting Muslims to Australia, they should be:
1/ Made aware of Aussie values and laws which are in conflict with the Quran
2/ Asked to sign a statement rejecting such Quranic teaching. If they will not, it is abundantly clear that they come here seeking to establish a community which is in conflict, values-wise with ours.

In particular Surah 23:5-6 and Surah 9:30

Now thats pretty clear and plain is it not?

banjo, you've got the australian disease: "the gummint shold do something!", or- "the opposition should do something!"

it's never: "we must do something!"

politicians are people who make a living out of getting elected. the country is run as an adjunct to this goal. so it's badly run, always, because the mechanics of getting elected demand bad management.

expecting any party to run the country in the interests of the people is as irresponsible as imagining pedophiles would make good child minders.

it will be hard to convert australia to democracy, but only needs recognition of the need and persistence. there are models to follow.

failure to start down the path to democracy will leave the nation in the hands of people who can not afford to understand, or simply don't care, that rising population and falling resources can only lead to rationing and ultimately, slavery.

I believe Muslim immigration to Australia is a serious threat to all things Australian. European, Chinese and Vietnamese migration has been a success story. Sectarian Turkish arrivals are also a success. More Muslims will add to a growing underclass of Centre link dependant poorly skilled but angry and envious people burdened with a host religious and cultural baggage totally incompatible with western society.
UNTIL MUSLIMS CAN BECOME SECTARIAN THEY HAVE NO PLACE IN AUSTRALIA OR ANYWHERE APART FROM THEIR BACKWARD HOMELANDS. MUSLIMS NEED AN INTERNAL”SORT OUT DAY” IF THEY ARE EVER GOING TO GET OUT OF THEIR “DARK AGE”.

Demos,
Like it or not, immigration is a federal issue so it is only right to request the feds to reduce the rate if one believes it to be far too high. Other than advocating Citizen Initiated referenda, if you can put forward a way of how "we" can change it, I would like to know.

You are seriously deluding yourself if you think that us becoming a republic will give better governance. There are plenty of undemocratic republics in the world. But I suspect you know this and are simply using this thread to push your own agenda.

If you want to discuss a republic, I suggest you make a post and then click on the wording "start new discussion" at the top of the page.

Print off the above Crikey article and confront your local federal MP with it. Ask them to justify their mass immigration policies. If enough people make a fuss, Howard/Costello will eventually get the message that at least some of us peasants are revolting against this mass influx into our country.

Excellent, more immigrants. We need to boost up the population a bit. Good for the workforce too.

Fail to see any downside, actually....unless....wait...they don't...look different to us do they? Different colour skin?

Oh god, this could be serious after all.

Spendo...the strongest argument against large numbers of immigrants is found...HERE.

http://www.melbournewater.com.au/content/water/weekly_water_update/weekly_water_update.asp?bhcp=1

happy spending :) cos ur gonna need heaps in future just to have a drink.
cheers
BD

I have no problem with the number of migrants.The quality of migrant in terms of compatability,willingness to intergrate and their intellectual capacity should have primacy in selection critera.

The Coalition have performed poorly in these areas of immigration for fear of offending sensitivities.

When we decide to have more than two children per family,then immigration won't be necessary.

"When we decide to have more than two children per family,then immigration won't be necessary."

How about immigration/population/procreation be a democratic/scientific/personal choice? Your comment is more dictation than discussion.

Alright Spendocrat. I’ll bite. Why do you think “We need to boost up the population a bit.”?
.

Arjay

“When we decide to have more than two children per family, then immigration won't be necessary”

In other words, when we have an eternally growing population of our own accord, we won’t need to import people? So why do you think we need a growing population at all?

You’ve got to realise that even with the current birthrate and net zero immigration, our population will continue to grow for a long time, due to the very high proportion of young ‘breeding’ people. So even with a personal fertility rate that is well below replacement level, the national fertility rate is significantly above replacement level.

So given this, can you now denounce immigration in Australia entirely, or immigration greater than net zero?

Why dont we stop all immigration for 15years or so and see what kind of intregration and dynamics eventuate between the groups we already have here. Then we can assess if mass immigration is benefiting the country or tearing it apart. We can also watch the world scene and see what happens in other countries with mass immigration.

Its all about making money and the more people in the shops the more profits people make. And the more workers the lower wages they can pay. Profit is again the motive. But we should be content with the wealth we already have and take some time out from immigration to asses the consequences to the long term stability of the country for the sake of our children and grandchildren and their children.

LUDWIG-:

I think I finally get what you are saying here, about personal growth rates and lots of young breeders. Sometimes I can be a bit lacking in clarity which is a nice way of saying sometimes I can be a bit thick. I think I had the same concerns in a way but went off on a different tack to defend mothers. It cant be addressed that way can it? Thank you for your wider insightfulness. Sometimes when I'm a bit crabby which I was that night I tend to jump in boots and all without looking hard enough.

Spendocrat says: "Excellent, more immigrants. We need to boost up the population a bit. Good for the workforce too."

Firstly, we do not need to boost the population. Perhaps you haven't noticed, but this continent's carrying capacity is severely limited by its aridness. The hot dry plains of central Australian aren't exactly habitable. Hence the reason why most of the nation's population is crammed into several narrow coastal strips.

A growing population combined with a warming climate is only going to exacerbate this nation's environmental sustainability problems, especially in relation to water scarcity.

Good for the workforce? By putting downward pressure on wages? I wonder if the Australian public would agree. Or perhaps you could ask one of the many unemployment IT workers unable to find a job thanks to the influx of foreign workers. At this rate, Australians are well on their way to following in the footsteps of the ethnic Malays as basically a majority underclass left to do the menial jobs while minorities get the administrative and business positions.

Never mind issues of social cohesion. Never mind that Australia's current population may wish to retain its own traditions and culture, instead of being overborne by large immigrations of disparate and perhaps culturally hostile groups. Never mind that every "multicultural" nation in history has eventually ripped itself apart.

Environmental sustainability must underwrite any immigration and population policy. In Australia's case, the environmental constraints on population growth are reason enough to oppose high immigration.

Australians are political and intellectual pygmies; that's why we have always had high-immigration governments. Voters haven't put a stop to it.

Stop whining about the consequences of your complacency. You've had the democratic freedoms to allow you to dictate what you want to politicians, but you have blown in it, preferring to bury your heads up your fundamental orifices for the sake of a quite life, sport, beer and the the long weekend.

Leigh: you're a twit.

Ludwig: I actually don't see how boosting the population helps the economy, but then I don't know much about the economy. I do know that most say an increase in population would help (as we're facing an ageing population etc). That's why politicians are encouraging people to have babies and so on.

I just find it weird that the politicians keep saying 'have more babies' at the same time as working to keep immigrants out. We apparently need more people, and other countries clearly have way too many. I believe I can spot a way to kill two birds...

That's one of the reasons why I won't be having any children (in addition to my general distate for screaming mini people). I consider it to be selfish to bring more people into an already desperately overpopulated world. There's already millions of children alive right now, in need of love and nurture and shelter and food and care. But we're not interested, cause their parents had sex somewhere far away! So it's not our concern, we'll have our own thanks! Bizarre really.

Spendocrat

If we keep bringing the people in here from overpopulated countries we are taking the pressure off these countries to face the consequences of overpopulating and doing something to deal with it. Like turning on the silly male priests and leaders of these countries and putting in leaders who will insist on providing contraception for the people. The United nations and the West could provide billions in aid to set up family planning clinics all over the world. These clinics could also provide medical aid to ensure the survival of the children that are born and food could also be distributed through them to the mothers and children where its most needed instead of going through corrupt officials and the army first. Too many male leaders in the United Nations would view this as a plot to usurp their male power or a Western conspiracy and then you have silly George Bush closing one down because of his religious beliefs recently.
Nothing will change while the rest of the world keeps dealing with the consequences of other countries overpopulations and corrupt leaders

Spendocrat, the ageing workforce argument for high immigration is fallacious. Read the 1999 parliamentary research paper entitled "Population Futures for Australia: the Policy Alternatives" which explicitly states: "It is demographic nonsense to believe that immigration can help to keep our population young."

Full report:

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rp/1999-2000/2000rp05.htm#8

Interestingly, the report also states: "As we have argued, annual net migration of 150 000 per annum seems to be beyond our present absorptive capacities."

Australia's absorptive capacities are obviously no longer a concern for the mass immigrationists in the Howard Government.

Leigh,
You are quite right, we are just too bloody complacent. The polys and media keep us occupied with incidentals such as state of origin football and BB. This hides what else is going on. The farmers in France dump manure, or such, on the steps of their parliament if they don't like what the Government does, while we just sit back and take it.

On immigration, both parties have high immigration policies so it does not acheive anything voting one out for the other. The only poly to advocate lowering immigration was Pauline and they killed her off.

What can we do to shake off apathy before we end up the same as England and Europe. We should learn from the mistakes ot othes.

I write letters to MPs, Ministers and papers but much more needs to be done

Heh. 'Mass Immigrationists'. Love it.

The impression I get is that most here are concerned with this country only. I see myself as part of the world and part of humanity, not part of a country, as borders are obviously arbitrary and man made to me. So when one lucky group of wealthy people in a specific geographical area (ie this country) is worried that sharing the wealth with people who happen to be born into a less fortunate geographical area may lessen their own cushy lifestyle, it's hard for me to see it as anything other than selfish and greedy. But maybe that's just me.

And maybe spendocrat, you should use your head instead of your bleeding heart. Your not a world citizen. You have no right of abode in or access to the social services of other countries. Try gaining residency in Switzerland and then you'll see how far your "global citizenship" gets you.

If Australia is your home, then your primary concern should be for this country and its people. Australians cannot be held responsible for the world's poor.

I should also remind you that Australia did not develop into one of the world's most stable and prosperous nations through sheer luck. Rather, Australia's priviledged status can be attributed to its British inheritance, but also the tenacity of its people. This is what makes Australia a nation which is envied by so many people in other parts of the world.

If you don't believe me, compare the history of Australia with that of another resource-rich colonial nation in the Southern hemisphere, Argentina. Why is it that while British-settled Australia has thrived, Spanish-settled Argentina has gone from military coups to economic collapse? Is it conceivable that Argentina's misfortune could be a direct result of social and cultural factors?

British historian Paul Johnson noted:

"The development of Australia rates as one of mankind's greatest achievements. Australians have created one of the most advanced and prosperous societies on earth. It is an achievement with few parallels in the history of human adventure."

It is asinine to believe opening the floodgates to mass immigration will somehow lift the world's poor out of poverty. In reality, it will only make life worse for ordinary Australians like you and me.

Mmm. I wasn't putting the idea forward as if I had a solution to the worlds problems. In fact the idea that you would suggest that is quite amusing. I'm just calling it as I see it. Like I said, it could just be me. You call it a bleeding heart, fine. I call it not being quite so selfish. Because I don't believe we have more of a right to wealth just because of we're our parents shagged.

And yes, we are genuinely all equally valid parts of one humanity. Even if no one else in the world acknowledged it, the fact would remain. Just because we instinctively maintain a tribal sense of 'us and them', as the tendency was passed on to us because it benefited survival in the past, doesnt mean there's any inherent truth in that view.

But anyway, I honestly cant be bothered detailing the ins and outs of why I see things the way I do. Admittedly its more philosophical and less politicky, mildy indulgent, and more of an exploration of the hows and whys of the way people think, as opposed to 'heres a problem, whats the solution'. And I doubt you'd be particularly interested in that discussion.

But I will say that I believe your opinion is largely influenced by an instinctive fear of the unknown. I simply try to remove fear from the equation during my considerations, as it doesn't seem to serve much positive purpose to me.

I thought this was an amusing and loosely relevant little article:

http://www.theonion.com/content/opinion/im_prepared_to_give_my_life_for

Frankly spendocrat, I'm not interested in your idealistic delusions about humanity.

As somebody who has travelled to less developed nations, I can honestly assure you that my reservations are driven by a desire to protect this country from the many problems experienced elsewhere. My own anecdotal observations aside, anybody with a sound understanding of contemporary history will comprehend the perils of high immigration.

Despite your assertions to the contrary, there is nothing wrong in loving your own national traditions and attempting to safeguard your own way of life. I do not see any moral imperative for Australia to import the world's problems, simply because this country's founders built a nation more prosperous than most.

You keep incinuating that Australia is just a piece of good luck that we are obliged to share, and that people like myself are "selfish" for putting the national interest first. What utter rot. If Australia's prosperity is simply a product of lucky geology, then why is it that most other resource-rich nations are failed states? Why is it that resource-poor Ireland has a much higher living standard than resource-rich Saudi Arabia? Maybe, just maybe, a nation's wealth has more to do with the characteristics, culture and traditions of its citizenry than the land's physical geography and geology. The sooner you understand that a nation is more than just a piece of land, the sooner rationality will prevail.

Yes, 300,000 immigrants seems like an excessive amount of people to be dragging into an arid and unforgiving land like Australia, but there are so many factors that influence the population numbers over a 10-100 year time span. Check out this link........

http://elecpress.monash.edu.au/pnp/free/pnpv6n2/mcdkipp3.htm

I might add that nobody will get much out of writing to politicians in an election year. It's doubtful you'll get a reply. Even a visit to a local pollie won't get you far. Imagine how vulnerable they must feel at this present time? One little slip of the tongue could spell disaster for their party.

On a personal level, I believe that immigration should be scaled back to at least half that number until we can access the impact drought and global warming are having on our Nation. Just because there's been a couple of days of average rain doesn't mean the drought is over yet.
Now, I'm hearing that due to limited water supplies, electricity supply might also become unreliable. Of course, the power company heads are deigning there's a problem, which usually means there is a problem. We really don't need anything more than a "stable" population until the sustainability of this great country has been fully accessed.
Aime.

Those who hide behind lofty humanitarian ideals to promote high immigration levels are nothing more than mouthpieces (whether they are conscious of this or not) of land specalators, property developers and dependant industries.

As I cross-posted to http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=4834#83259 :

If anyone still seriously maintains that immigration is not a factor which fuel housing inflation and is not, as a consequence, encouraged and welcomed by land speculators and property developers, they should check the sories in pratically every day's newspapers about growing housing unaffordability. Also check out these articles:

"Property prices tipped to soar" at http://www.realestate.com.au/review/apr072/prices_soar.html?from=review

"Michael Yardney - who runs buyers' advocacy service Metropole Property Investment Strategists -

"... said Australia was on the cusp of one last momentous real estate boom caused by strong immigration, a lack of land and an increasing proportion of single-person households. As the price climb continued, home ownership levels would also continue to fall, he said."

"Boom, migrant demand lift roof off home sales" at http://www.theage.com.au/news/business/boom-migrant-demand-lift-roof-off-home-sales/2007/06/09/1181089394431.html

"Scott Keck, managing director of property consultants Charter Keck Cramer, said part of the market's resurgence stemmed from immigration, with about 1000 people settling in Melbourne every week.

"'In the past two years, 80 per cent of migrant families coming to Melbourne have purchased their own home within 18 months of arriving,' he said."

---

The way that Australia's Growth Lobby has been able to surreptiously impose its environmentally, economically and socially reckless high immigration program on the rest of us has been meticulously documented in Sheila Newman's Masters thesis of 2002 entitled "The Growth Lobby and its Absence : The Relationship between the Property Development and Housing Industries and Immigration Policy
in Australia and France". It can be downloaded from http://candobetter.org/sheila

Also, another shorter document can be found on the same page. It is a 13 page pdf document from Monash University's "People and Place Magazine" vol 4 no 14 of 2006 entitled "The Growth Lobby and Australia's Immigration Program" by Katharine Betts and Michael Gilding. It is at http://candobetter.org/sheila/growthLobbyAndImmigration.pdf