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.