Pauline Hanson and respected businessman, Dick Smith, believe that 70,000 immigrants annually is plenty; they are not alone. However, the places made available for 2017-18 are: 192,000 immigrants and 62,250 refugees.

Huge difference, one that Australian politicians need to explain – if they can.

ITs not the number ttbn, its the type.

It's also the number, runner. Our immigration per capita is ridiculous. It is used only as a means of fooling people into thinking the economy is growing. The rest of us are getting poorer because of high immigration.

. It is used only as a means of fooling people into thinking the economy is growing. The rest of us are getting poorer because '

I doubt whether the fruit growers who can't get lazy aussies to pick fruit would agree with you ttbn.

runner - Go back a few years and the over 85% who had been here over 5 years and were still on welfare did not attempt to help the fruit growers so what makes you think these will?

Refugees okay welfare for lifers NO.

We pay them too much on welfare even had one on welfare able to afford multiple trips back home, so much for scared refugees.

Dear ttbn,

Where did you get your figures from?

Could you give us a link?

I've found a link that clarifies the complexity of
these figures:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2016/10/17/how-many-migrants-come-to-australia-every-year/

We're told that almost half of Australia's permanent
migration program consists of people who are already
here, generally on some kind of temporary visa.

In 2015-16, 190,000 permanent skilled and family visas
were granted, of which more than 91,000 went to people
already living in Australia. To include those people
in the number of migrants that Australia "takes" in a
financial year is to engage in double counting.

According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics the
intake in 2015 - 15 was - 168,200.

As for refugees? Australia accepted 17,555 refugees in
total in 2015-2016.

cont'd ...

My apologies for the typo.

The years for the figure of 168,200
should read - 2014 - 15.

Not 2015 - 15.

My mistake.

runner
"I doubt whether the fruit growers who can't get lazy aussies to pick fruit would agree with you ttbn."
All Centerlink has to do is cut off their payments until they starve enough to want to work. Simple.
If the try to steal for a living lock them up for say ten years.

"It is used only as a means of fooling people into thinking the economy is growing."

It's always tricks... like comparing debt as a % of GDP.
They can't just say "We're headed towards a trillion in debt that we'll never ever repay".

Our entire planet is a polished turd.
It's all advertising campaigns and media relations and spin.

Foxy IT's a far right thing. they say things straight from the hip without any research, just like Abbott used to do and still does.
If it sounds like it would be good for a bit of sensationalism they are all for it.

Dear doog,

I get the feeling that some people on this forum
feel the need to complain. That's all they do.
If they had nothing to complain about they'd
be miserable.

There is another implication of a migrant-refugee intake of 200,000 that I've been trying to get my head around.

The Indigenous population under, say, twenty, forms about 4 % or more of the total Australian population, with about 11,000 Indigenous births each year. The proportion halves by the age of forty, to less than 2 %.

Stereotyping a bit (sorry, Paul), how old are most migrants and refugees when they arrive in Australia ? Between twenty and forty. In those twenty years, at current rates, almost four million more migrants and refugees will come to Australia. The total Indigenous population across those age-groups is less than two hundred thousand, a year's intake of migrants and refugees.

So, the newcomer-intake in one year is equivalent to twenty years of Indigenous population. It begins to impact, roughly, from the age of about twenty.

I used to be confident that the high proportion of Indigenous people under twenty would flow through, and that the Indigenous proportion of the population would inexorably grow. No. I don't think so now. It will barely maintain its 2.4 % currently - perhaps, given very slow growth in birth numbers, about 0.5 % p.a., from one Census to the next, it may even fall.

I'm certainly not saying that somehow it's the fault of newcomers - it's simply an outcome of a generous immigration and refugee policy, and I don't knock that. But it does have an impact indirectly and inadvertently on the proportion of the Australian adult population. Not to mention that the newcomers tend to be young, and will have their families here. Policies can have unforeseen effects. Almost invariably :)

Joe

It's not refugees picking fruit, it's backpackers and 457 visa holders.

Big Nana,

That is correct. Fruit pickers are people on working holidays. They, and 457 visa holders have nothing do with the 192,000 or so immigration intake. We just don't know what happens to most immigrants after they arrive here. Do they work? Are they on welfare? How do we manage to absorb so many people when our population is only 25 million, and there is a 6-7% unemployment rate. What about the almost 1 million non-citizens who are paid welfare. Why were they brought here?

These are questions that need to be asked of our now virtually unaccountable politicians.

Big Nana,

Well picked.

It should be mentioned too that where treated kindly and that is easy enough to do, although some councils are slow to wake up, those positive, optimistic, adventure-loving, p/t working, young backpackers, many of whom are students and can confidently be expected to bring their families next time for tourism.

There is a delayed, significant benefit for Australian tourism in welcoming them now and giving them some little luxuries like cheap campsites, clean public conveniences, cooking and hot water in parks and rest areas.

A bloke very close to my family aged 43, started work in a Newcastle factory making washery screens for coal mines, when he was 16. He worked his way from the ground up and ended up Production Manager for the past 5 years of his employment with that company.

In 2013 the company passed out of Australian hands and was sold to an overseas company and people started losing their jobs, starting with the reps. Nothing else happened for awhile then they were told the Newcastle site was closing and they were moving to Brisbane, all factory hands were paid off. Our friend was offered a job as Production Manager in the new plant in Brisbane and went up there for a trial, the factory was fully staffed on the floor with Philipino's on 457's, their english was very minimal and all instructions went through the Philipino interpreter. He and the general manager were the only aussies.

He knew to move his whole family to Brisbane (his wife has a great government job, his kids settled in school, one in high school) and to work in the circumstances he found himself was a no go so took redundancy and left the company. He was out of work for nearly a year then finally landed a good job albeit starting pretty much from the bottom again and on less money than he was used to.

Some of those blokes that were laid off in their late 40's and early 50's never did find new jobs, 12 months later the Newcastle factory re-opened with all new staff and all new, much lower contracts, some of the old workers re-applied but were shocked at the new conditions and much lower wages and none were re-employed.

It seems the government is happy to pay the dole to that 90 odd men that lost their jobs to the 457's and it beggars belief that the company re-opened 12 months later. It's all very shifty and I wonder how many times this sort of thing happens and is probably why our welfare bill is so huge

To Foxy and other supporters of immigration, please tell me, how do we pay for ANYONE ELSE when we cant provide for everyone hear now?

I have no problem with anyone provided one, they have something to offer, and two, as long as we dont have to cut funding to our own people in order to pay for them.

You dont borrow to pay for someone elses morgtage do you.

Hi Foxy.
People who arrive on some kind of temporary visa are not counted as immigrants. Only if they get permanent visa, they are counted, regardless of when they arrived. They are not counted twice. Under your suggestion, those 91, 000 would never be counted as immigrants.