Today in the smh the lead article suggests what would happen if our immigration was stopped. Do you agree or not?

http://www.smh.com.au/national/this-is-what-would-happen-if-australia-halted-immigration-20160930-grsizn.

This should give posters plenty to debate.

As I am sure it will come up, here also is One Nation's policy, which basically is a Zero Net policy, which means if X people leave Australia permanently in a year, that is the number we allow in the following year.

http://www.gwb.com.au/onenation/press/020798.html

I favour the One Nation policy (Zero Net)and would cut the arrivals by stopping people from those groups that have shown us they cannot or will not integrate and have little respect for our laws and social standards, and wish to change our society from a democracy. For example,I would immediately ban entry of people from those groups that practice FGM and underage marriage.

Interestingly a recent poll showed that 49% of people favoured a ban on muslim immigration. One well known muslim advocate, Mariam Veiszadeh, doubted the poll and set up her own poll and she got 40,000 responses and the result was that 74% wanted a ban on muslim immigration.

Look. The only people wanting high immigration are politicians (for votes) and big business (for money). It has been shown that the more immigration there is, the poorer the general population becomes. Wages are lowered. Infrastructure is overloaded. The environment suffers. Mass immigration as practised by both major parties is plain stupid. The "experts" who say differently should be boiled in oil.

And hi to you BANJO...

I have nothing to add really, I agree with everything you've said, absolutely ! The only thing I would say, when you think about it, given the general feeling most people have, concerning Muslims. Our politicians must be traitors to the electorate at large, by persisting with this absurd notion of allowing more Muslims into our country, against the precise wishes of the electorate, who's votes it was that put them into power in the first instance.

The surveillance industry needs Moslem immigration from which a trickle of terrorist attempts can be relied on in order to empower and fund the surveillance industry.

O sung wu,
I agree with you, the non action of the major parties is treasonous, they have known about the problem for 30-40 years, beginning when Whitlam installed multiculturalism and Fraser ignored advice about the Lebanese muslims. They continue to encourage immigrants with non-compatable cultures which affects our community cohesiveness.

I think they have deliberately done this to satisfy big business who are only interested in sales of consumer goods and property to more and more customers. Of course I may be wrong and it could be part of a world wide conspiracy for UN governing the world.

The sad part is that our living standards keep falling, to the extent that young couples now have no hope of buying a home and there is an ever increasing risk of citizens being involved in a terrorist act.

Other than making people aware, what can be done? If wholesale civil war comes to Europe it just may have the effect of us installing politicians that actually care for our citizens.

People are gradually waking up, but many do not realize just how serious the situation is at present. Sport and TV soap operas keep most amused and ignorant.

Jessica Irvine is not noted for her understanding of economics, or most of the other issues she writes on. This article purports to be analysis but is in fact a pastiche of quotes from people with a vested interest in a larger population. I can't see one mention of the Productivity Commission's recent inquiry into the issue http://www.pc.gov.au/inquiries/completed/migrant-intake#report which concludes there is a marginal benefit. Other studies conclude a slight disbenefit. I think in fact, from an economic point of view immigration is likely to be neutral.

A lot of the issues she talks about are largely imaginary. For example, I won't be leaving the employent pool any time soon, and large numbers of my cohort are in the same position, despite being in what would have conventionally been the twilight of our careers. I don't have the savings to be retired for 40 or so years, and I wouldn't want to be either. So the looming dearth of tax payers is illusory.

Well, the international airport lounges definitely wouldn't go quiet. The article says just over 177,000 people immigrate a year. That's a drop in the bucket compared with the international traffic. Sydney international alone has 13.5 million revenue passengers (assuming Wikipedia can be believed). I write this sitting in Christchurch international about to fly to Sydney international!
Actually I thought current immigration was more than that quoted, which is a small number relative to population, and compared to the history of immigration to Australia.
Immigration makes us poorer? I'm prepared to bet that everone posting here is a descendant of immigrants, and that they and all previous members of their family since immigration are and have been better off than their immigrant ancestors were before they came. The vast majority of us descend from economic immigrants.

H there BANJO...

Your second last paragraph says it all in my view ? There's already much civil unrest in many European countries where there's been much Muslim 'back-up'. Mainly because many of those Countries who initially welcomed immigration, were shocked to find how aggressive they were, and one need only look at what's happening in the French Port of Calais, Police have needed to adopt riot protocol, in order to stop these young Muslim men from stampeding through the Channel Tunnel.

Why might you ask do these Muslims seek to reach Great Britain? Many of them passing through other European Countries, a sort of evaluation even a financial appraisal to see which Country has the 'softest touch' in terms of benefits, free accommodation, and all the other advantages for immigrants to access without too much difficulty.

Of course the best financial 'ideal' or 'attraction' would have to be Great Britain with the 'immediacy' of all the financial benefits, the NHS and the Dole, priority free housing, etc. etc. While many of the UK's lower and working classes, who've paid tax all their lives have to struggle on, and on and on and even on. Their anger is palpable. If in any doubt, listen in to London's talk-back Radio LBC 97.3, as I do, and you'll hear their despair. It's morally wrong, and highly inflammatory, to say the least.

Civil War or civil insurrection ? You can bet your life on it, and it's my belief it will be initiated by Muslims living in Great Britain wanting Sharia laws right throughout the United Kingdom !

I did hear a moslem say why many of them cheat on the dole and other
welfare funding. They treat it as the Jizaz tax which all infidels must pay to moslems.
So this would seem to be why they feel no shame and are defiant when
they get dragged into court.
The cry in the UK is now "I want my country back !".

Our problem as I see it is that many people see the reports from
France of killings, they tut tut then watch a few TV programs and
dismiss it all from mind. What is needed is the drip drip drip of
reports of Islamic attacks that are happening daily.
There is one newsletter that produces each month a report of something
happening or a court case for every day of the month.

For instance this just one that has daily reports;
http://tinyurl.com/zwmw8gr
It made me realise that this whole moslem thing is a real campaign
to change our way of life in a really dramatic way.
Certainly not for the best but it should be compulsory reading for
schoolgirls in particular.
These things are what the media is keeping from us. It is not PC !

Right on, Bazz.

Nothing like a bit of mutual back slapping and migrant bashing from the 'Usual Suspects' when it comes to immigration. We get the standard lines, Fortress Australia as put forward by the extreme right of One Nation, no Asians, no Muslims, no one who's not white Anglo Saxon, no one who does not fit our ideal, but we don't actually say that. What else do we have, its all a conspiracy by vested interests to keep us poor. Well vested interests have failed in that endeavor over the past couple of hundred years, as here we are in 2016 with 97% of the population migrants or decedents of migrants and Australia one of the richest countries in the world, with a very high standard of living, despite according to some, immigration being an economic neutral. Then there is what the singular does or says, and we use it as a blanket to incriminate all within the group, if one does it, then all do it!
There is nothing new in any of this, post WWII there was a high degree of animosity from native born Australian, mostly of British ancestry, towards Southern Europeans, people who they perceived as different and therefore a threat to their "way of life". Post Vietnam and an influx of Indochinese migrants engendered more hostility from the same quarter, but this time they were joined by the more recent European immigrants in condemning Asian immigration, for all the same reasons which are being put forward today. Australia, despite the doom and gloom merchants, has on the whole been successful at assimilating and accommodating migrants. No one should deny there has not been problems at times, but mostly they have been overcome to create a successful multi cultural society.

Well Paul1405, your post is very typical of the Useful Idiot's attempts
to put down such as myself.
You always bring up the tensions with previous generations of immigrants,
yet you just do not seem to be able to see the difference between those
previous immigrants and the current moslem crop of immigrants.

That is why you qualify for the Useful Idiot label.

As far as the previous generations are concerned, there was some truth
in the case of the Italians as they did bring the various brands of
the Mafia with them. Or have you forgotten Trimboli and company ?
However most Italians did not give allegiance to them.
Likewise the Vietnamese, we did have an Asian Crime squad to combat
the drug importation business and that still seems to be very active.

However, and you should not need a lecture from me to understand this;
There is a different structure in the community of these recent
migrants demonstrated by their religious/political structure.
They are instructed by Mohammed not to take infidels as friends and
to avoid all contact where possible.
Perhaps you have never had contact with them, I have had limited
contact but it was not very productive and this was before I understood
anything about Islam.
One example, showing me a photo of his children but covering up his wife in the photo.
That was my first impression of Islam way back in 1967.

Bazz, as one gripped by fear, you can apply all the labels you like to those who disagree with you. Maybe I can apply a label or two to you.
I know a number of people, both acquaintances and friends I mix with from time to time, who profess to be Muslim and I have no problems with that. I am not an apologists for the Islamic religion at all, I put it in the same category as religions in general, they offer nothing I can support.
You have convinced yourself that you have a complete understanding of these people, their beliefs and customs, and how they would react given certain circumstances. I put this to you, what is the vast majority of Muslims in the Middle East doing at the moment? Given the wars in Syria and Iraq, unrest elsewhere, you would expect them to be engaged in these wars. Not so, the vast majority are not engaged in war but are passive by-standers, and are the innocent victims of these wars. How do you explain that?

Yep, Paul. "Passive bystanders" waiting to get to the big welfare bucks in the West. Muslims are noted for relying on Allah (who doesn't exist, so the ignorant West fills in) to do everything for them.

Paul, I have not labelled you with anything.
the term "Useful Idiot" is how you are labelled by the moslems.
It is the term they give to infidels who support them or make excuses
for moslems.
They call you idiots because you will be among the first to be given
the options, submit to Islam, Pay the Jizaz, or die.
Make no mistake that is not some middle ages demand, it is being
made now today.

I do not profess to completely understand them, I do not think they
understand themselves too well.
I have read enough of their activity and their writings to understand
that as a political movement they are very dangerous as the French,
Swedes and Germans are now finding.
It has been realised that the moderates are only that until the
Islamists get close to power then they comply with Mohommad's demands.

If you do not understand that then you are, like your party, not really wanting to know.

Paul1405: Recognising a vicious cult for what it is doesn't mean being "gripped by fear". And it doesn't mean hostility to or discomfort with anybody of different ethnicity. White Anglo-Saxon Australia and the policies of Pauline Hanson are straw men to cover for lack of a case that takes into account actual facts.

I was totally indifferent to Islam until Moslems paraded in the streets of London demanding death for the (indifferent) writer Salman Rushdie. What the hell were the British doing allowing these mongrels to parade in the streets demanding murder of a British citizen? During that period a postgrad student (an Indonesian Moslem) I knew told me that of course if he knew where Rushdie was hiding he'd pass on the word, it was his religious duty.

Another postgrad, a Moslem from Bangla Desh, complained that the university wouldn't allow Middle Easterners to use its swimming facilities. Puzzled me, until I realised what he meant was it didn't arrange segregated swimming so they didn't have to put up with men and women in the same facility. Hmm. Didn't stop me spending many days lobbying (successfully) for him to be given asylum when the then fascist Bangla Deshi dictatorship suddenly demanded his immediate return for interrogation.

A flaw that useful idiots share in common is conflation. They can't accept hostility to an Islamic cult unless they conflate the hostility with white racism or Pauline Hanson. I've heard Ms Hanson speak only twice – once recently on Q&A when she was out of her depth and once in parliament when she was the only one in the room who was absolutely right.

That was when the fascist Republic of Indonesia which had its claws in East Timor and West Papua was facing bankruptcy and parliament was debating a special loan to it. Pauline Hanson suggested that the loan should be with-held until the corrupt fascist dictator Soeharto emptied his Swiss bank accounts and gifted his ill-gotten gains to his country's treasury. Bigotry, kicking a neighbouring country when it's down, howled the useful idiots.