Flood of migrants overwhelm Australia's borders

helicart
You keep shifting the goalposts.
Is it environment, economy, or something else?
Yet to see you put anything decent together, so I won't be replying to you until you have a cogent case to present - which has been lacking from the outset.

Green
Migration is a net financial positive from year one, increasing as the cohort stays longer in our nation. In that context migrants contribute a greater share to Australia's infrastructure than local born. The detailed answer you need is one which addresses the skill base of local born and their propensity to work hard.

disarray
First, carrying capacity is the maximum number of living things that can be supported in a specific habitat. We already produce enough food to support double our population, and have enough water in storage for a population of 200million without the need to build another dam. Adding another 10 million migrants in the next 50 years will be a doddle.
Secondly, you failed to "define" multiculturalism. However, you adequately showed that nations have issues irrespective of their "cultural mix". In that context it is a sideshow to suggest migrants cause insurmountable social problems.
If you can get your act together there might be something else worth discussing from your remaining ramblings.

rederob said:

helicart
You keep shifting the goalposts.
Is it environment, economy, or something else?
Yet to see you put anything decent together, so I won't be replying to you until you have a cogent case to present - which has been lacking from the outset.

So according to you Red, population growth doesn't impact on environment, economy, or anything else.....it is just some discrete little thing all on its ownsome................I think when you wake up tomorrow, even you will realize this would have you laughed out of any university faculty lunch room in the western world.


Green
Migration is a net financial positive from year one, increasing as the cohort stays longer in our nation.

Red, that's based on Access Economics model using 07 humanitarian and refugee ratios, that you want to increase so we can conform with our no holds barred legally binding international obligations.....

In that context migrants contribute a greater share to Australia's infrastructure than local born.

Not all migrants....and let's remember we are talking about a Access's rough model, that doesn't account for excessive migration driving up property prices, and then Aussie banks having to borrow 25% of funds lent to home buyers, from overseas, and then 25% of mortgage interest going offshore, dampening down the money multiplier drastically....and even less capital being availble for local mines to borrow to drive cash flows....and becoming more reliant on foreign borrowing and purchasing of local assets......I mean the links tying all this stuff together are pretty obvious Red.....Why do you refuse to see them....

The detailed answer you need is one which addresses the skill base of local born and their propensity to work hard.

that's certainly magnified by atheist lefties who like to give people money for nothing, and dump on the conservative values that Australia was built on........let alone overtax the private sector, thus driving jobs OS....


disarray
First, carrying capacity is the maximum number of living things that can be supported in a specific habitat. We already produce enough food to support double our population,

hang on Red, that's export income that can't even keep a Rudd budget in the black....and you want to take that income away now???? take take take.....you haven't yet once come up with a well spelt out plan on hwo to generate more wealth.....

and have enough water in storage for a population of 200million without the need to build another dam. Adding another 10 million migrants in the next 50 years will be a doddle.

hahahaha....really? what is the industry that provides 70 million jobs going to use for water???

Secondly, you failed to "define" multiculturalism. However, you adequately showed that nations have issues irrespective of their "cultural mix". In that context it is a sideshow to suggest migrants cause insurmountable social problems.

If you can get your act together there might be something else worth discussing from your remaining ramblings.

Click to expand...

you are getting mind numbingly repetitive and uninpiring Red.

FWIW
I remember as a kid being overwhelmed by the first job offer I ever received. Actually, he was a great boss and also a migrant.

GumbyLearner said:

FWIW
I remember as a kid being overwhelmed by the first job offer I ever received. Actually, he was a great boss and also a migrant.

Click to expand...

I'd say 70% of my best friends are 1st, 2nd, or 3rd gen migrants GG...

But they all take issue with bending over to accommodate Islam, and they hate socialism and a welfare state with a vengeance.....and they will protect their std of living more intensely than many of the lost souls that feel bad about those of us who work hard and are financially rewarded for doing so.

helicart said:

I'd say 70% of my best friends are 1st, 2nd, or 3rd gen migrants GG...

But they all take issue with bending over to accommodate Islam, and they hate socialism and a welfare state with a vengeance.....and they will protect their std of living more intensely than many of the lost souls that feel bad about those of us who work hard and are financially rewarded for doing so.

Click to expand...

I'm glad Australia accommodated this two fine young men.
Growing up in Thommo and hitting the books.
Well done young lads.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/f...astown-and-near-perfection-20081215-6z1t.html

WHEN Shaheen Hasmat and his family arrived in Australia from Afghanistan as refugees five years ago, the year 8 student knew only a few words in English, like yes and no.

Despite his love of numbers ”” he admits to reading physics websites in his spare time ”” his schooling in the war-torn capital, Kabul, had been sporadic at best.

On Monday night, just hours before the VCE results were released, the 17-year-old paced his family's Thomastown home while his mother and five siblings slept, feeling the weight of the world on his shoulders and unable to sleep.

But yesterday, Shaheen was the dux of Reservoir District Secondary College, with a near-perfect tertiary score, or ENTER, of 99.8 and the promise of a scholarship to study medicine at Monash University.

He achieved a perfect score of 50 in specialist maths, scores above 45 for English, physics, chemistry and maths methods, and first class honours for university physics.

"When I found out I lay on the floor and prayed, thanking God," he said. "Knowledge has always been valued in my family and I just felt so grateful to be able to do this."

His delight was shared by his older brother, Poya, 18, who was the dux of their school last year, with an ENTER of 97.95.

GumbyLearner said:

I'm glad Australia accommodated this two fine young men.
Growing up in Thommo and hitting the books.
Well done young lads.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/f...astown-and-near-perfection-20081215-6z1t.html

WHEN Shaheen Hasmat and his family arrived in Australia from Afghanistan as refugees five years ago, the year 8 student knew only a few words in English, like yes and no.

Despite his love of numbers ”” he admits to reading physics websites in his spare time ”” his schooling in the war-torn capital, Kabul, had been sporadic at best.

On Monday night, just hours before the VCE results were released, the 17-year-old paced his family's Thomastown home while his mother and five siblings slept, feeling the weight of the world on his shoulders and unable to sleep.

But yesterday, Shaheen was the dux of Reservoir District Secondary College, with a near-perfect tertiary score, or ENTER, of 99.8 and the promise of a scholarship to study medicine at Monash University.

He achieved a perfect score of 50 in specialist maths, scores above 45 for English, physics, chemistry and maths methods, and first class honours for university physics.

"When I found out I lay on the floor and prayed, thanking God," he said. "Knowledge has always been valued in my family and I just felt so grateful to be able to do this."

His delight was shared by his older brother, Poya, 18, who was the dux of their school last year, with an ENTER of 97.95.

Click to expand...

agree totally .

Afghans have good genes.

Their beliefs are a bit sus, but the ones I know have abandoned their religion quite quickly, after a few years in the freedom of Australia.

Racism should be banned from this forum, full stop.

Afghans are also bloody good soccer players.

gg

rederob said:

First, carrying capacity is the maximum number of living things that can be supported in a specific habitat. We already produce enough food to support double our population, and have enough water in storage for a population of 200million without the need to build another dam. Adding another 10 million migrants in the next 50 years will be a doddle.

Click to expand...

why do we need to add another 10 million immigrants? you are obsessed with growth. what's wrong with sustainability?

also you say we have storage for 200 million people, where is your source for this claim? what level of water restrictions are required for this? how long will these supplies last with 200 million people utilising them? does it require us to drain the aquefiers? build new pipelines? pray for more rain? does this magic number take into account environmental cycles like drought, el nino events and so on? is this just for domestic consumption or is industry included? does it take into account the growth of industry if we jam another 10 million people into our capital cities (which is where they will undoubtedly settle)? what environmental impacts would occur with the additional strain on water supplies?

you keep coming up with all these broad generalisations with absolutely no facts and i don't see any evidence of you putting any consideration whatsoever into your ill conceived and fanciful ideas.

Secondly, you failed to "define" multiculturalism.

Click to expand...

you define it. you are an extremely lazy poster and debater.

However, you adequately showed that nations have issues irrespective of their "cultural mix". In that context it is a sideshow to suggest migrants cause insurmountable social problems.

Click to expand...

how is it a sideshow? if i just proved that racial mixes create social problems, then potential social problems are an important aspect of immigration policy and must be addressed. and i'm glad you think i "adequately showed" it. you really are a elitist intellectual prig aren't you?

If you can get your act together there might be something else worth discussing from your remaining ramblings.

Click to expand...

see my last sentence of the previous point. you are a one eyed, closed minded, hypocritical bigot who headbutts his way through threads with nothing more than ill conceived opinions, tenuous facts and a massive ego.

yes mr. rob, you are a textbook bigot.

GG said:

Racism should be banned from this forum

Click to expand...

so whose definition of racism? is pointing out factual and provable difference between races and cultures racism? and while we're at it lets ban sexism. and criticism of religion. how about we just come up with a set opinion everyone should follow and we'll ban anyone who deviates from that? unleash the banhammer!

GG said:

Afghans have good genes...Afghans are also bloody good soccer players

Click to expand...

racist

GumbyLearner said:

I'm glad Australia accommodated this two fine young men.

Click to expand...

Garpal Gumnut said:

agree totally .

Afghans have good genes.

Click to expand...

Really??? Well I am disappointed for the Islamic Afghan people for having just lost more of their potential intellectual capital.....but I suppose Australians who feel intellectually challenged and incapable of meeting the opportunities of the future, due to the disadvantage and sense of inferiority their personal values have brought upon their heads, don't see it that way....and rejoice that they can rest back on the haunches sucking down another coldie, putting another high fat sausage on the barbie while watching the footy on the outdoor plasma, and let the little battler migrants do all the hard yards

Let me take your points in turn so that you understand what debating can be:

disarray said:

why do we need to add another 10 million immigrants?

Click to expand...

Carefully read what I said; that we can accommodate another 10 million migrants over the next 50 years. It was said in the context of carrying capacity, and is consistent with ABS population estimates. We may not "need" that many migrants. On the other hand there is every chance that our inadequate skills base in a growing global setting will demand we source labour from overseas. This has been a repeating theme in Australia and is likely to continue.

you are obsessed with growth.

Click to expand...

This statement is not true. Growth is a natural phenomenon and I won't stand in its way. I am concerned that we properly manage growth and see it as important to our progress.

what's wrong with sustainability?

Click to expand...

I am a staunch supporter of sustainability. As a nation I believe our greatest failing is a lack of planning for sustainability.

also you say we have storage for 200 million people, where is your source for this claim? what level of water restrictions are required for this? how long will these supplies last with 200 million people utilising them? does it require us to drain the aquefiers? build new pipelines? pray for more rain? does this magic number take into account environmental cycles like drought, el nino events and so on? is this just for domestic consumption or is industry included? does it take into account the growth of industry if we jam another 10 million people into our capital cities (which is where they will undoubtedly settle)? what environmental impacts would occur with the additional strain on water supplies?

Click to expand...

My numbers were based solely on the notion of "carrying capacity". In relation to water you can search for yourself if you don't believe me. Then you might have some basis for refuting my claims.

you keep coming up with all these broad generalisations with absolutely no facts and i don't see any evidence of you putting any consideration whatsoever into your ill conceived and fanciful ideas.

Click to expand...

I can present all the facts necessary to substantiate my claims. Despite calls in this thread that I have erred somewhere, none have been shown to have any foundation. I repeat: My challenge to your ilk is to prove I am wrong.

you define it.

Click to expand...

You took on the challenge. Now it's too hard for you? I made it clear that "multiculturalism" was prone to certain ambiguities.

you are an extremely lazy poster and debater.

Click to expand...

I prefer to respond to points raised in relation to the topic at hand. I believe I have made this clear in this thread.

how is it a sideshow? if i just proved that racial mixes create social problems, then potential social problems are an important aspect of immigration policy and must be addressed. and i'm glad you think i "adequately showed" it.

Click to expand...

You adequately showed that nations exhibiting minimal "multicultural" aspect, such as China, have social issues to contend with. In words of your own choosing "the world is not a nice place. humans are not a nice species". So immigration is not of itself the cause of social dislocations. Rightly, you recognise there might be cultural baggage that some immigrants bring that are anathema - both to our society, and within their own.

you really are a elitist intellectual prig aren't you?

Click to expand...

I will take that as a compliment and thank you for making your views so clear.

see my last sentence of the previous point. you are a one eyed, closed minded, hypocritical bigot who headbutts his way through threads with nothing more than ill conceived opinions, tenuous facts and a massive ego.

Click to expand...

See my last sentence of the previous post.

yes mr. rob, you are a textbook bigot.

Click to expand...

That would be illogical in the context of my stance in this thread.

disarray said:

why do we need to add another 10 million immigrants? you are obsessed with growth. what's wrong with sustainability?

also you say we have storage for 200 million people, where is your source for this claim? what level of water restrictions are required for this? how long will these supplies last with 200 million people utilising them? does it require us to drain the aquefiers? build new pipelines? pray for more rain? does this magic number take into account environmental cycles like drought, el nino events and so on? is this just for domestic consumption or is industry included? does it take into account the growth of industry if we jam another 10 million people into our capital cities (which is where they will undoubtedly settle)? what environmental impacts would occur with the additional strain on water supplies?

you keep coming up with all these broad generalisations with absolutely no facts and i don't see any evidence of you putting any consideration whatsoever into your ill conceived and fanciful ideas.



you define it. you are an extremely lazy poster and debater.



how is it a sideshow? if i just proved that racial mixes create social problems, then potential social problems are an important aspect of immigration policy and must be addressed. and i'm glad you think i "adequately showed" it. you really are a elitist intellectual prig aren't you?



see my last sentence of the previous point. you are a one eyed, closed minded, hypocritical bigot who headbutts his way through threads with nothing more than ill conceived opinions, tenuous facts and a massive ego.

yes mr. rob, you are a textbook bigot.



so whose definition of racism? is pointing out factual and provable difference between races and cultures racism? and while we're at it lets ban sexism. and criticism of religion. how about we just come up with a set opinion everyone should follow and we'll ban anyone who deviates from that? unleash the banhammer!



racist

Click to expand...

Thanks dis, its a good post and contributes to debate.

I've done some research on my roots ( not those other some many thousand or so roots I remember each and every one with pleasure)

I am a mixture mainly of Celt and Viking.

So I have unpredictable warlike genes.

I accept this , it is not racist.

I find Afghans and Sri Lankans of both sides very engaging people.

I find Egyptians difficult to digest.

That is not racist.

Perhaps if I spent time in Egypt it would be different.

The Dutch I like, also Afrikanners.

Ah, I can see you now classifyying me as racist.

Of all the races I would want my childrens' genes mixed with I would propose, Irish, Indian, Dutch, Chinese or Spanish.

Not in any particular order.

But they will make their own minds up.

Racism is a very easy term to bandy about, but be careful , lest you do it to a person with Celtic or Viking blood in his veins, lest you end up in the deepest difficult argument you can ever imagine.

Sir , you are a a disgrace.

gg.

rederob said:

Carefully read what I said; that we can accommodate another 10 million migrants over the next 50 years. It was said in the context of carrying capacity, and is consistent with ABS population estimates.

Click to expand...

and in the context of your other posts in this thread, such as -

rederob said:

We can afford to be more generous ... I believe our refugee intake needs to be steadily ratcheted upwards ... I repeat what I have said about refugee intakes in that we can afford to take more: That we have a capacity to ratchet the numbers higher over time ...

Click to expand...

but wait ...

rederob said:

At no point in this thread have I said "bring more immigrants"... I don't recall saying we should increase migration

Click to expand...

so which one is it? we need to ratchet up the refugee intake or not? or is this different to "bringing more immigrants"? or perhaps refugees aren't migrants by your definition? or more likely is you didn't mean to make an actual point by using the word "needs" when you really should have just kept dodging and not making any point of your own. not making points of your own isn't debating by the way.

so red, should we bring more migrants (including refugees) into australia or not? if yes, how many did you have in mind? where do you think we should source them?

rederob said:

This statement is not true. Growth is a natural phenomenon and I won't stand in its way. I am concerned that we properly manage growth and see it as important to our progress.

Click to expand...

ok so tell us how we would manage your target of 200 million people living in australia? economically, socially, environmentally, infrastructure development and so on. or wait, maybe you didn't actually say we should have 200 million people. oh you meant carrying capacity, ok then red, lets nail it down shall we - how many people do YOU think we should have in australia given the current state of the nation? what should our growth rate be?

rederob said:

I am a staunch supporter of sustainability.

Click to expand...

ok then, what is a sustainable population level for australia? what requirements need to be met for this level?

As a nation I believe our greatest failing is a lack of planning for sustainability.

Click to expand...

i agree

My numbers were based solely on the notion of "carrying capacity". In relation to water you can search for yourself if you don't believe me. Then you might have some basis for refuting my claims.

Click to expand...

heh you're a slippery one, i'll give you that. its cool, lets just get some concrete numbers out of you for a change instead of the amorphous word play you love so well.

I can present all the facts necessary to substantiate my claims

Click to expand...

ok present the water carrying capacity fact. present the fact that "by redirecting monies from border defence to humanitarian resettlement programs we would benifit both socially and financially in the longer term". what facts back up your assertion that "Australia has more than adequate infrastructure to accommodate a significantly larger population than it has"?

notice how facts is in bold? that means "not opinions". your opinions have been repeatedly refuted but you really don't seem to pay attention to anyone other than yourself.

Despite calls in this thread that I have erred somewhere, none have been shown to have any foundation. I repeat: My challenge to your ilk is to prove I am wrong.

Click to expand...

wrong about what? carrying capacity? you haven't provided any facts. that australia can support 200 million people? you haven't provided any facts.

You took on the challenge. Now it's too hard for you? I made it clear that "multiculturalism" was prone to certain ambiguities.

Click to expand...

here we go again with reds challenges. lets have a look at his other challenges this thread and his response when he is challenged -

rederob said:

Your challenge is to falsify my claims ...You need to show the material impact of migration on company takeovers, etc.... I don't need to disprove anything ... I don't have to prove anything because my stance in this thread is about Australia (as a wealthy nation) accepting an increased share of refugees ... I put a challenge to you that remains unmet

Click to expand...

I prefer to respond to points raised in relation to the topic at hand. I believe I have made this clear in this thread.

Click to expand...

except when it suits you not to. lazy.

rederob said:

That would be illogical in the context of my stance in this thread.

Click to expand...

A bigot is a person who is intolerant of or takes offense to the opinions, lifestyles or identities differing from his or her own, and bigotry is the corresponding attitude or mindset.

rederob said:

the political backlash from xenophobes ... The ignorance displayed by some here about the plight and motives of refugees is symptomatic of xenophobic attitudes, and gains traction with those will never seek to look over the horizon ... You need to make fewer assumptions than you do, and you might become more credible ...

Click to expand...

there's more of that where that came from. your similar efforts in the arab/israeli thread were stellar! how about -

Bigot is often used as a pejorative term to describe a person who is obstinately devoted to prejudices, especially when these views are either challenged, or proven to be false or not universally applicable or acceptable.

rederob said:

i don't have to disprove anything

Click to expand...

GG said:

Racism is a very easy term to bandy about, but be careful , lest you do it to a person with Celtic or Viking blood in his veins, lest you end up in the deepest difficult argument you can ever imagine.

Sir , you are a a disgrace.

Click to expand...

what the hell are you blathering on about?

dis,



You sound as if you are either an academic or someone with a wheelbarrow to push.

The allegation of racism has lost all of its Keating era power, due to manipulation by politicians.

We are all racist , in one way or another.

It is normal.

What democracy and the rule of law ensures is that peple will not be adversely affected by racism.

By stating my genetic ancestry I am saying to you that I do not suffer fools gladly.

OK.

I don't suffer fools.

Do I need to make it any more cogent?


gg

Garpal Gumnut said:

We are all racist , in one way or another.

It is normal.

Click to expand...

yeah i know. i'm talking about you saying "ban racism" then make "racist" comments about afghans. i'm asking where do you draw the line if you want to start wielding the banhammer over it?

By stating my genetic ancestry I am saying to you that I do not suffer fools gladly.

Click to expand...

i don't care about your genetic ancestry there tiger. i've got the same as you.

disarray said:

yeah i know. i'm talking about you saying "ban racism" then make "racist" comments about afghans. i'm asking where do you draw the line if you want to start wielding the banhammer over it?



i don't care about your genetic ancestry there tiger. i've got the same as you.

Click to expand...

I probably have the same as both of you.

But you know what deep down ****s me about this thread, ..is the concept of a fair-go! We are all Aussie! It has never been mentioned once, not ONCE!

Honestly

Who cares?

If you want to make a go of it, why not our wonderful country?

disarray
Is there a reason that neither you nor you cohort cannot come up with figures to back up your points?
Parsing our respective posts does not add to this thread.
I've put out some numbers.
You want sources/references?
How about you come back with your own ideas and support them.

In the meantime I am willing to bet anyone that our population will continue to increase year on year for the foreseeable future, with migration continuing to make a significant contribution. I also expect our society to advance considerably over coming decades, with attendant increases in living standards. There is nothing to suggest the proven net benefits of migration to our economy will be detrimentally impacted, even if our refugee shares were to double.

rederob said:

disarray
Parsing our respective posts does not add to this thread.
I've put out some numbers.
.

Click to expand...

Oh ? yours got torn apart , yes you sure have put out some numbers , :screwy:
What a pathetic response to Disarrays destruction of your logic .

Lets see what attack you come back with this time ? will it be I tell mostly lies or some other demented rubbish ? can't wait for the next laugh :fu:

rederob said:

In the meantime I am willing to bet anyone that our population will continue to increase year on year for the foreseeable future, with migration continuing to make a significant contribution.

It will increase based on the beliefs and sentiment, no matter how misinformed, of the electorate.....which means squat re the wisest way forwards.

I also expect our society to advance considerably over coming decades, with attendant increases in living standards. There is nothing to suggest the proven net benefits of migration to our economy will be detrimentally impacted, even if our refugee shares were to double.

Click to expand...

1.
So according to Red, we have a higher std of living when the median house price moves from 4x median wage to 8x....

National Median House Price = 470,000 Source:APM
National Full Time Ordinary Hour Median Income = 60,000 Source:ABS

And let's remember, a very high % of people don't have permanent f/t jobs nowadays...

The net effect of this is of course, to force households to rely on dual incomes, which puts downwards pressure on the fertility rate......of course, a lower fertility rate fits Red's strategy to rely even moreso on migration.

And, as usual, Red just insouciantly skims over the reasons for higher property prices with not a care in the world....according to Red, higher property prices have absolutely nothing to do with migration.


2.
And Red, let's have a look below at some of the figures you provided to validate your POV.

Can you explain how Australia benefits from migrants from family, humanitarian, and refugee categories. And what did you want to increase these categories by....

Considering by this 'model', each humanitarian or refugee migrant costs Australia 20k in year 1, and another 20k over the next 19 years, just what did you want to expand the category to?

And while you are at it, I've had a look at these numbers for a while and cannot work out how the bottom line was derived. Maybe you can.

You didn't get it before:

Originally Posted by rederob
By the way, when you rethink post 245 you might realise the massive miscalculation you made (post 250) - quite unforgivable actually, although I will concede to you some humanity.

Click to expand...

Don't get too smug Red. It is after all, only a MODEL.....funny that the govt, with better access to actual data and events being modeled, can't do its own modelling hey? what do you think is behind that? rhetorical question....sorry....

Click to expand...

And you still don't get it:

And while you are at it, I've had a look at these numbers for a while and cannot work out how the bottom line was derived. Maybe you can.

Click to expand...

Not being able to work the maths on migration you now move this discussion to median house prices. What's next?

rederob said:

You didn't get it before:

And you still don't get it:

Not being able to work the maths on migration you now move this discussion to median house prices. What's next?

Click to expand...

Hey, I'm not on the team fudging the migration stats to confuse poor Joe Public .... come on Red, explain how the bottom line is derived.

And I see you are back to your usual trick of ignoring the too hard questions Red......so I'll repeat the question:

how many 40k+ net deficit refugees can we absorb?

I'll take a guess and presume your answer is- by increasing our intake of skilled migrants..........

Really Red? then explain who employs these extra skilled workers.
Presumably, those companies will need to borrow capital to finance their operations. And where are they going to get that capital from Red?

As for median house prices, oh yes, I forgot....in your humble opinion, migration has no bearing on housing supply and demand.....