Flawed logic Yuyutsu - "They would be well-informed that they will receive nothing here from Australian society. If they still choose to come, then it's their own choice and you've done nothing unethical."

If we follow your advice then all comers to our shores are granted access, yet they arrive with nothing and have no support network. They realise they won't have any help but still chose to enter. With no place to live and no money they walk toward the city and as night falls find a bridge to sleep under; perhaps they have few dollars to buy some food. Then what? More and more in the same 'boat' arrive and our cities eventually have a class of foreign street people living amongst us.

Yuyutsu, you haven't thought this through properly. Your option will either lead to these people being exploited or a percentage of them committing crimes just to survive. And as they are not entitled to any help, the problem just continues to grow; our society suffers as do the individuals.

Your solution is actually worse than turning them away at the border and every bit as unethical.

Con Hip said;
and our cities eventually have a class of foreign street people living amongst us.

This is exactly what has happened in Athens.

The situation will get worse than Malthusista & Con Hip said as the Australian
government will have less revenue as time goes on. Treasurers of both parties are
completely unaware of what is happening to the very foundations of our economy.
We were spending the cost of the NBN every year on fuel imports.
Now that we are importing 95% approx as our refineries have closed I have not seen any
figures for the latest costs.
There is a small offset as we do export the oil we do produce, but that is declining at
around 4% a year.

We have become hostage to the rest of the world and risk becoming a beggar in the oil market.

Yuyutsu "I believe that people should be related by choice, not by coercion."

Where is *my* choice in having my neighbourhood/workplace/country radically transformed into something unrecognisable?
This is being IMPOSED on me.

I can choose to move to an "White" social space only while they still EXIST.
And they will become scarcer and scarcer as this displacement progresses.
I can't even escape back to my ancestral European homeland, because the SAME THING is happening there!

"A Turk cannot cease to be ethnically Turk, but s/he can convert to another culture if they find it better."

They can adopt/mimic the superficial elements of others, but someone born and bred a Turk CANNOT genuinely become a Mexican, Swede or Zulu.
And those peoples would probably not accept the Turk as one of them either.
He would be considered a tourist/guest at best.

"But one can always de-identify with their original culture: I did so myself."

That explains a lot.
You have no identity, no connection to a genuine history.

"the better culture shall win."

Rubbish.
The most aggressive and brutal usually wins such competitions.

"so when people arrive at Australian shores, you should leave them as they are - neither help them nor obstruct them."

But if they're arriving on our shores, they are *not* "leaving things as they are". They are changing our society.

"born where they were, they now want to move here."

And I want to live here, in a place recognisable as the country I was born in.
What about what *we* want, the people already living here?

ConservativeHippie "Your [Yuyutsu's] solution is actually worse than turning them away at the border"

But Yuyutsu doesn't care about the real-world consequences.
It's all just head-in-the-clouds idealist theory to Yuyutsu.

Correction - I said to Yuyutsu "Your solution is actually worse than turning them away at the border and every bit as unethical."

I do not believe turning potential undesirable immigrants at the border is unethical. It's our border, our country and our right to make decisions about who we accept.

I used the term 'unethical' in the context of Yuyutsu's original statement but in retrospect I see it appears I agreed with him that turning people away is unethical, which I don't.

Talking of Turks, I see the Turkish prime minister is quoted as saying that women are inferior to men.

Hmm.

Aidan,

I too would like to see your evidence that any problem can be solved. It is true that we got lucky with the Green Revolution, but even the man most responsible for it said that he was only buying some time to get population growth under control (see Norman Borlaug's Nobel Prize acceptance speech). On the other had, there are plenty of societies that have collapsed because they degraded their environment or let their safety margins get too thin. See, for example, "Dirt: the Erosion of Civilizations" by Prof. David Montgomery (Soil Science, University of Washington). Furthermore, a lot of technological advances were predicted in the 1950s that haven't eventuated. Electrical power too cheap to meter, anyone?

So far as Australia is concerned, immigration has everything to do with population. It is directly responsible for 60% of our population growth and for ~75% if you include births to migrant mothers. We would still have rapid population growth even if the existing population stopped having babies altogether. I prefer to speak the truth, even if you consider it "anti-immigrant".

There are a few environmental problems that have nothing to do with population - it only took one fool to introduce the rabbit to Australia, but for most of them, it is I = PAT (environmental impact is a product of the population, the average affluence of that population, and a factor representing the "dirtiness" of the technology used to achieve that level of affluence). Just ask yourself if a problem would be as serious if a lot fewer people were contributing to it. Furthermore, people have to consume in order to survive, and if there are enough of them, it doesn't matter if per capita consumption is low. China is the world's biggest emitter of greenhouse gases, and it is still the biggest even if you exclude production for export. If you look at the tables in the last Global Footprint Network atlas, you will see that the top billion people in the richest countries are responsible for only about 38% of consumption.

http://www.footprintnetwork.org/images/uploads/Ecological_Footprint_Atlas_2010.pdf