Foxy posted this article on another thread. I think the subject is worthy of a deal of discussion and reading this article is a good place to start. Don't expect the pollys to discuss population. Both major parties have a mutual agreement not to debate population or immigration, but leave it up to the party in power.

Why do we need a high immigration rate?

Why don't we educate our own skilled workers?

Why do we import many that obviously have alien cultural practices?

These questions need asking.

Dear Banjo,

Thanks for starting this discussion.

Here's the link cited earlier - which although
is a few years old, it's even more relevant
today as our population is increasing past
the levels we were told could be sustainable:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-opinion/how-many-is-too-many-australias-people-problem-20100218-Ogfp.html

We do need to have this discussion if we want a
sustainable Australia. We can not continue to ignore the
results that high population growth has on this country -
things like water shortages, increasing polution, expensive
re-building of our cities and infrastructure, to name just
a few. Population growth causes many of our major
economic, environmental and social problems - yet successive
governments continue to push it higher.

The link is worth a read.

To me productive immigrants (ones who want to work) are a useful addition to a country like Australia, because of the aging population..

But welfare for lifers,and people who do not want to assimilate with our culture and are opposed to it are definitely a burden and a danger.

Category 1 accept lots.
Category 2 accept none and get rid of the ones we have here.

Foxy wants an honest discussion about immigration? ROFL!

The article makes many valid points, but any attempt to discuss even the *quantity* of immigrants is always met with the Pavlovian screams of "Racist! Fascist! Nazi!", whether you discuss water, jobs or anything else.

It isn't even the quantity that matters most.
It's the quality.

We could have free movement (like with New Zealand) if it was restricted to advanced countries *only*.

There will always be a billion Third Worlders who want to migrate to richer countries.
There would be much less movement *between* the advanced countries, even if it was unregulated.

But, the "problem" is most of those advanced countries are filled with White people, so no, such a policy will immediately be labelled "racist" and dismissed without any consideration.

No change is going to happen with immigration policy until it's too late.
Only when our society is disintegrating in front of our eyes will most people "wake up".

Too late then.
Prosperity, peace and pleasantries will have already vanished from our land and may never return, no matter what policy we introduce at the 11th hour.

Interesting distinction, Philip S.

>>But welfare for lifers,and people who do not want to assimilate with our culture and are opposed to it are definitely a burden and a danger.<<

Can we at the same time get rid of the welfare for lifers that already live here? That would make room for a heck of a lot more people who are willing to work, and who would then be able to drive the Australian economy to dizzying heights.

Mind you, Canberra would quickly become a deserted wasteland of ugly buildings and empty, windy streets.

Oh, wait.

Philip S, "To me productive immigrants (ones who want to work) are a useful addition to a country like Australia, because of the aging population"

Does it really help, or does it add for example through family reunion, to the aging population though (and also increasing the load on health services as well)?

The report of that special committee of the House of Lords UK arrived at the conclusion that migration only benefits migrants, for example. The report has been linked to before on similar threads.

How to measure the ongoing burden and loss of quality of life where things go wrong through inappropriate, in fact reckless, risk taking in immigration? The example of Rotherham for instance, where a political system with values, traditions and culture toxic to the UK's was imported with unexpected long lasting negative consequences.