TOPIC:

If anything displays the abject disaster that is Australia's immigration policy ( or should I say lack of it ) this does, we have let this run totally off track, no surprise we are a nation importing more people than any other place in the work and have NO population policy, I repeat No population policy...

Little wonder hospitals, schools roads, trains , housing are crumbling under the madness of this pressure.

Unfortunley lazy politicians have become addicted to easy sugar hit that pumping 300,000 people into a couple of cities gives them, they scramble to buy a house, pushing up prices but paying stamp duty, they fill the house with crap from Harvey Norman ( all imported ) , giving a false boast to "growth" figures.

The numbers need to be cut immediately to allow this nation to recover. and plan for how will we support the future, water, power, food, fuel you name it.

Bazza: All true -- mind you most of them go over east so let the great glorious Victorians and NSW lot deal with them. As I have said before immigration and the relatted issue of multiculturalism is the olny area of Commonwealth government policy which has not been seriously reviewed since 1975.

There are some green shoots in the Western World:

Brexit
Italy boat turn backs
Sweden is sending some refugees back
Denmark is threatening to take childern and welfare payments away from migrant families whom don't integrate
NZ Labour government has cut back their immigration rate as it was putting too much pressure on the working-class in particular

This chart on the ABC website says it all. Population increases by natural means has remained roughly the same for 30 years or about 150,000 a year. Increases due to immigration has gone up 5 fold in the same period from 50,000 a year to 250,000 at present. Surely that's not sustainable in the medium to long term.

www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-07/chart-of-...-components/10078628

BC wrote: This chart on the ABC website says it all. Population increases by natural means has remained roughly the same for 30 years or about 150,000 a year. Increases due to immigration has gone up 5 fold in the same period from 50,000 a year to 250,000 at present. Surely that's not sustainable in the medium to long term.

www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-07/chart-of-...-components/10078628

Well property developers and other peddlers would think it is. Migrants provide good fodder to drive domestic consumption and therefore economic "growth". People are, naturally, focusing on the impact of migration whether perceived congestion or social cohesion but the question to be asked is "who supports high migration rates and how have they managed to capture the political elites on both sides of politics?" Follow the money.

No problem bringing them all in, we can just keep chucking our people out on the streets to make sure we have housing for them. And of course we have enough funds in the bank to pay out generous social service money.

Dazzler wrote:

BC wrote: This chart on the ABC website says it all. Population increases by natural means has remained roughly the same for 30 years or about 150,000 a year. Increases due to immigration has gone up 5 fold in the same period from 50,000 a year to 250,000 at present. Surely that's not sustainable in the medium to long term.

www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-07/chart-of-...-components/10078628

Well property developers and other peddlers would think it is. Migrants provide good fodder to drive domestic consumption and therefore economic "growth". People are, naturally, focusing on the impact of migration whether perceived congestion or social cohesion but the question to be asked is "who supports high migration rates and how have they managed to capture the political elites on both sides of politics?" Follow the money.

Absolutely spot on...

Think about how this issue plays out in America, where they take 1 million a year. Real wages have not increassed for the working-class in 40 years, although this not necessarily the case in the upper middle classes.

Historially America has had the following population:

1783 -- 2 million
1812 -- 5 million
1900 -- 76 million
1950 -- 152.3 million
2000 -- 282 million

which means that since their 'so-called Revolution' in 1783, America has become the third most populous nation on our earth, lagging behind only India and China. Given those cold demographics facts, and given the strugglles of the working-class over the last 40 years, why does America need a large scale immigration policy?

This is a perfectly reasonable question, and yet, it is never asked by the American elites, not even Trump.

BC wrote: This chart on the ABC website says it all. Population increases by natural means has remained roughly the same for 30 years or about 150,000 a year. Increases due to immigration has gone up 5 fold in the same period from 50,000 a year to 250,000 at present. Surely that's not sustainable in the medium to long term.

www.abc.net.au/news/2018-08-07/chart-of-...-components/10078628

Yep BC astounding, you have NSW and Victoria burning up with drought at the moment, the whole eastern sea board already has power supply issues , never mind water, arable land is declining so food will be an issue, Medicare is a basketcase due to the pressure, education standards are dropping because schools have 60 kids in a class room , most cant even read an English alphabet never mind speak it.

Big Australia nutters think Australia is like the USA , a massive arable prairie of sweeping rivers and plains, in fact 90% of the joint is rock and sand and getting dryer.

ArkRoyal wrote: Think about how this issue plays out in America, where they take 1 million a year. Real wages have not increassed for the working-class in 40 years, although this not necessarily the case in the upper middle classes.

Historially America has had the following population:

1783 -- 2 million
1812 -- 5 million
1900 -- 76 million
1950 -- 152.3 million
2000 -- 282 million

which means that since their 'so-called Revolution' in 1783, America has become the third most populous nation on our earth, lagging behind only India and China. Given those cold demographics facts, and given the strugglles of the working-class over the last 40 years, why does America need a large scale immigration policy?

This is a perfectly reasonable question, and yet, it is never asked by the American elites, not even Trump.

The reason Australia has had almost zero real wage growth in last 10 years is due to the over supply of labour record high migration.

Baz: yep, can you explain that to the ALP? Yep again -- which is why I dic the detailled post about America's demographics. The interesting thing is that the Left are not supposse to ape the seppos, but they do, as you know, because they are intellectually incoherent.