Australian Politics Forum - Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 54358
Gender: male

Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #45 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:31pm

Frank wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:02pm:

The great immigration deceit

https://spectatorau.imgix.net/content/uploads/2018/02/Capture-8.jpg
In 2015, the Germany fertility rate was at 1.5 births per woman. This is below the EU average, and far lower than the population ‘replacement rate’ of 2.1. By 2030, the proportion of working-age residents in Germany is also predicted to fall from 61 per cent to 54 per cent.

However, while it is true that Germany does face issues of demography, is mass immigration a practical solution to the problem? British writer Douglas Murray, in The Strange Death of Europe, gives an infallible argument against Merkel’s reasoning. Murray leaves no doubt in reader’s minds that the European Union’s most powerful official must be either critically incompetent; or a liar.

For one, Merkel’s reasoning ignores the fact, so clearly elucidated by Murray, that migrants themselves get older; thus causing the eternal need for ever more migrants as time progresses. As migrants enter Germany, they ensure that even greater numbers are required in future; and thus the process is doomed to repeat itself with a continually increasing rate of immigration. Merkel’s espoused strategy is not sustainable in the long-term; immaterial of the fact that many migrants require more money from the state, over their lifetime, than they could ever contribute in the form of taxation.

Merkel’s outlook towards demographics also ignores the essential truth behind why German birth rates are so low. When first ruminating on your nation’s low birth rate, any competent world leader would surely look at fixing the root causes of the problem; as opposed to immediately looking to import a million people. The low birth rates in Western Europe are not indicative of a continent that has shunned the idea of children, but instead portrays a continent where lifestyle factors have led women to decide against having large families. British research, quoted by Murray in The Strange Death of Europe, found that only 8 per cent of women didn’t want children, and only 4 per cent wanted one child. By contrast, 55 per cent wanted two children; and the rest of the population three or more. For the average Western European woman, it is facts of life, such as the loss of income when a child is born, that discourage them from having as many children as they desire.

When facing the migrant crisis in 2015, Merkel would surely have been aware of this sentiment in her own country. If she had any idea, then Merkel should have known that mass migration was not a viable long-term solution to account for low German birth rates. By fixing the root issues that are causing native Germans to have fewer children, Merkel would have been infinitely more successful in plugging the nation’s long-term demographic shortfall. Programs such a generous maternity leave, while expensive to implement, would largely negate any apparent ‘necessity’ for mass immigration from the third-world; and would avoid the litany of costs and threats to social cohesion that present themselves as a result.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/02/the-great-immigration-deceit/

Anyone who argues for mass third world immigration to the West is critically incompetent or a liar.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 54358
Gender: male

Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #46 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:34pm

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 3:47pm:

Here's a false assumption: that the economy of the future can only work with the same sized labour force that we have now.

Here's an idea: technological advances, along with investment in skills and infrastructure makes our industries far more efficient, requiring less human labour. Add to that the inevitable advances in medicine that will improve the quality of life for the elderly, not only reducing the economic burden they put on society, but actually enabling them to remain productive.

There speaks the pre-Muslim-conversion Australian.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #47 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:17pm

Frank wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:31pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:02pm:

The great immigration deceit

https://spectatorau.imgix.net/content/uploads/2018/02/Capture-8.jpg
In 2015, the Germany fertility rate was at 1.5 births per woman. This is below the EU average, and far lower than the population ‘replacement rate’ of 2.1. By 2030, the proportion of working-age residents in Germany is also predicted to fall from 61 per cent to 54 per cent.

However, while it is true that Germany does face issues of demography, is mass immigration a practical solution to the problem? British writer Douglas Murray, in The Strange Death of Europe, gives an infallible argument against Merkel’s reasoning. Murray leaves no doubt in reader’s minds that the European Union’s most powerful official must be either critically incompetent; or a liar.

For one, Merkel’s reasoning ignores the fact, so clearly elucidated by Murray, that migrants themselves get older; thus causing the eternal need for ever more migrants as time progresses. As migrants enter Germany, they ensure that even greater numbers are required in future; and thus the process is doomed to repeat itself with a continually increasing rate of immigration. Merkel’s espoused strategy is not sustainable in the long-term; immaterial of the fact that many migrants require more money from the state, over their lifetime, than they could ever contribute in the form of taxation.

Merkel’s outlook towards demographics also ignores the essential truth behind why German birth rates are so low. When first ruminating on your nation’s low birth rate, any competent world leader would surely look at fixing the root causes of the problem; as opposed to immediately looking to import a million people. The low birth rates in Western Europe are not indicative of a continent that has shunned the idea of children, but instead portrays a continent where lifestyle factors have led women to decide against having large families. British research, quoted by Murray in The Strange Death of Europe, found that only 8 per cent of women didn’t want children, and only 4 per cent wanted one child. By contrast, 55 per cent wanted two children; and the rest of the population three or more. For the average Western European woman, it is facts of life, such as the loss of income when a child is born, that discourage them from having as many children as they desire.

When facing the migrant crisis in 2015, Merkel would surely have been aware of this sentiment in her own country. If she had any idea, then Merkel should have known that mass migration was not a viable long-term solution to account for low German birth rates. By fixing the root issues that are causing native Germans to have fewer children, Merkel would have been infinitely more successful in plugging the nation’s long-term demographic shortfall. Programs such a generous maternity leave, while expensive to implement, would largely negate any apparent ‘necessity’ for mass immigration from the third-world; and would avoid the litany of costs and threats to social cohesion that present themselves as a result.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/02/the-great-immigration-deceit/

Anyone who argues for mass third world immigration to the West is critically incompetent or a liar.

The article perfectly illustrates the problems. Nobody is suggesting that migration is the silver bullet and the great fix. All acknowledge it's inherent shortcomings and future pitfalls. The overriding issue is that nobody has come close to suggesting a viable alternative. This includes the author of the article.

Quote:

Anyone who argues for mass third world immigration to the West is critically incompetent or a liar.

That's fantastic but what are the alternatives.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 54358
Gender: male

Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #48 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:22pm

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:17pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:31pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:02pm:

The great immigration deceit

https://spectatorau.imgix.net/content/uploads/2018/02/Capture-8.jpg
In 2015, the Germany fertility rate was at 1.5 births per woman. This is below the EU average, and far lower than the population ‘replacement rate’ of 2.1. By 2030, the proportion of working-age residents in Germany is also predicted to fall from 61 per cent to 54 per cent.

However, while it is true that Germany does face issues of demography, is mass immigration a practical solution to the problem? British writer Douglas Murray, in The Strange Death of Europe, gives an infallible argument against Merkel’s reasoning. Murray leaves no doubt in reader’s minds that the European Union’s most powerful official must be either critically incompetent; or a liar.

For one, Merkel’s reasoning ignores the fact, so clearly elucidated by Murray, that migrants themselves get older; thus causing the eternal need for ever more migrants as time progresses. As migrants enter Germany, they ensure that even greater numbers are required in future; and thus the process is doomed to repeat itself with a continually increasing rate of immigration. Merkel’s espoused strategy is not sustainable in the long-term; immaterial of the fact that many migrants require more money from the state, over their lifetime, than they could ever contribute in the form of taxation.

Merkel’s outlook towards demographics also ignores the essential truth behind why German birth rates are so low. When first ruminating on your nation’s low birth rate, any competent world leader would surely look at fixing the root causes of the problem; as opposed to immediately looking to import a million people. The low birth rates in Western Europe are not indicative of a continent that has shunned the idea of children, but instead portrays a continent where lifestyle factors have led women to decide against having large families. British research, quoted by Murray in The Strange Death of Europe, found that only 8 per cent of women didn’t want children, and only 4 per cent wanted one child. By contrast, 55 per cent wanted two children; and the rest of the population three or more. For the average Western European woman, it is facts of life, such as the loss of income when a child is born, that discourage them from having as many children as they desire.

When facing the migrant crisis in 2015, Merkel would surely have been aware of this sentiment in her own country. If she had any idea, then Merkel should have known that mass migration was not a viable long-term solution to account for low German birth rates. By fixing the root issues that are causing native Germans to have fewer children, Merkel would have been infinitely more successful in plugging the nation’s long-term demographic shortfall. Programs such a generous maternity leave, while expensive to implement, would largely negate any apparent ‘necessity’ for mass immigration from the third-world; and would avoid the litany of costs and threats to social cohesion that present themselves as a result.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/02/the-great-immigration-deceit/

Anyone who argues for mass third world immigration to the West is critically incompetent or a liar.

The article perfectly illustrates the problems. Nobody is suggesting that migration is the silver bullet and the great fix. All acknowledge it's inherent shortcomings and future pitfalls. The overriding issue is that nobody has come close to suggesting a viable alternative. This includes the author of the article.

Quote:

Anyone who argues for mass third world immigration to the West is critically incompetent or a liar.

That's fantastic but what are the alternatives.

The alternative is not to have mass third world immigration.

It is not worth it in any reckoning.

The article actually does show how to to maintain population - do not take away the incentive from Western women to have babies. They want more babies than they are having:

British research, quoted by Murray in The Strange Death of Europe, found that only 8 per cent of women didn’t want children, and only 4 per cent wanted one child. By contrast, 55 per cent wanted two children; and the rest of the population three or more. For the average Western European woman, it is facts of life, such as the loss of income when a child is born, that discourage them from having as many children as they desire.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #49 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:24pm

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:44pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:01pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 3:41pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 10:45am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 10:09am:

Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging.

You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term.

Immigration is at best a short term solution to the ageing population problem. The main problem with it is that a) immigrants age too, and b) immigrants invariably end up having the same number of children as the average - even if they originally came from high birth countries. So ultimately the only way for this solution to work is to forever continue to increase the immigration rate (to offset more and more ageing people) - which is obviously unsustainable.

Perhaps its time to embrace our ageing population and look at other more sustainable solutions like medical technology to make the elderly more productive and less of a burden to society, and an economy that is more and more based on automation.

The low birth rate is a direct consequence of 20% of the working age population having insufficient income. Eradicate poverty, and the birth rate will take care of itself.

Even with a fertility rate equal to the death rate it does not obviate the ageing population problem. At a fertility rate of 2 and an ageing population it will no longer be a stable population but one that still increases with time.

Incorrect. The replacement level of population isn't 2, but slightly higher than this, around 2.1, to account for some people not having children for various reasons. You're implying that the replacement level is below 2. That's frankly ludicrous.

Any tendency to increased longevity will not cause the population to increase in the long term. Once the demographics stabilises, so does population, if people are having children at the replacement rate with immigration replacing any shortfall in the birth rate.

I repeat - our high level of immigration is not sustainable. Immigrants won't usually leave the country on retirement. Many stay here - to become old people in need of support just like everyone else.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 89156
Proud Old White Australian Man
Gender: male

Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #50 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 10:04pm

In terms of making up the numbers - it seems to be more an issue of the immigration (not refugee) mix than of numbers... and that includes where people are coming from and the values they bring with them.

Many have no idea that you pay your staff according to rules here and you pay their super as well.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #51 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 10:56pm

Bam wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:24pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:44pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:01pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 3:41pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 10:45am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 10:09am:

Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging.

You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term.

Immigration is at best a short term solution to the ageing population problem. The main problem with it is that a) immigrants age too, and b) immigrants invariably end up having the same number of children as the average - even if they originally came from high birth countries. So ultimately the only way for this solution to work is to forever continue to increase the immigration rate (to offset more and more ageing people) - which is obviously unsustainable.

Perhaps its time to embrace our ageing population and look at other more sustainable solutions like medical technology to make the elderly more productive and less of a burden to society, and an economy that is more and more based on automation.

The low birth rate is a direct consequence of 20% of the working age population having insufficient income. Eradicate poverty, and the birth rate will take care of itself.

Even with a fertility rate equal to the death rate it does not obviate the ageing population problem. At a fertility rate of 2 and an ageing population it will no longer be a stable population but one that still increases with time.

Incorrect. The replacement level of population isn't 2, but slightly higher than this, around 2.1, to account for some people not having children for various reasons. You're implying that the replacement level is below 2. That's frankly ludicrous.

Any tendency to increased longevity will not cause the population to increase in the long term. Once the demographics stabilises, so does population, if people are having children at the replacement rate with immigration replacing any shortfall in the birth rate.

I repeat - our high level of immigration is not sustainable. Immigrants won't usually leave the country on retirement. Many stay here - to become old people in need of support just like everyone else.

Wrong. If the population continually ages and the replacement rate equals the attrition rate, the population will expand.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #52 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 10:58pm

Frank wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:22pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:17pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:31pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:02pm:

The great immigration deceit

https://spectatorau.imgix.net/content/uploads/2018/02/Capture-8.jpg
In 2015, the Germany fertility rate was at 1.5 births per woman. This is below the EU average, and far lower than the population ‘replacement rate’ of 2.1. By 2030, the proportion of working-age residents in Germany is also predicted to fall from 61 per cent to 54 per cent.

However, while it is true that Germany does face issues of demography, is mass immigration a practical solution to the problem? British writer Douglas Murray, in The Strange Death of Europe, gives an infallible argument against Merkel’s reasoning. Murray leaves no doubt in reader’s minds that the European Union’s most powerful official must be either critically incompetent; or a liar.

For one, Merkel’s reasoning ignores the fact, so clearly elucidated by Murray, that migrants themselves get older; thus causing the eternal need for ever more migrants as time progresses. As migrants enter Germany, they ensure that even greater numbers are required in future; and thus the process is doomed to repeat itself with a continually increasing rate of immigration. Merkel’s espoused strategy is not sustainable in the long-term; immaterial of the fact that many migrants require more money from the state, over their lifetime, than they could ever contribute in the form of taxation.

Merkel’s outlook towards demographics also ignores the essential truth behind why German birth rates are so low. When first ruminating on your nation’s low birth rate, any competent world leader would surely look at fixing the root causes of the problem; as opposed to immediately looking to import a million people. The low birth rates in Western Europe are not indicative of a continent that has shunned the idea of children, but instead portrays a continent where lifestyle factors have led women to decide against having large families. British research, quoted by Murray in The Strange Death of Europe, found that only 8 per cent of women didn’t want children, and only 4 per cent wanted one child. By contrast, 55 per cent wanted two children; and the rest of the population three or more. For the average Western European woman, it is facts of life, such as the loss of income when a child is born, that discourage them from having as many children as they desire.

When facing the migrant crisis in 2015, Merkel would surely have been aware of this sentiment in her own country. If she had any idea, then Merkel should have known that mass migration was not a viable long-term solution to account for low German birth rates. By fixing the root issues that are causing native Germans to have fewer children, Merkel would have been infinitely more successful in plugging the nation’s long-term demographic shortfall. Programs such a generous maternity leave, while expensive to implement, would largely negate any apparent ‘necessity’ for mass immigration from the third-world; and would avoid the litany of costs and threats to social cohesion that present themselves as a result.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/02/the-great-immigration-deceit/

Anyone who argues for mass third world immigration to the West is critically incompetent or a liar.

The article perfectly illustrates the problems. Nobody is suggesting that migration is the silver bullet and the great fix. All acknowledge it's inherent shortcomings and future pitfalls. The overriding issue is that nobody has come close to suggesting a viable alternative. This includes the author of the article.

Quote:

Anyone who argues for mass third world immigration to the West is critically incompetent or a liar.

That's fantastic but what are the alternatives.

The alternative is not to have mass third world immigration.

It is not worth it in any reckoning.

The article actually does show how to to maintain population - do not take away the incentive from Western women to have babies. They want more babies than they are having:

British research, quoted by Murray in The Strange Death of Europe, found that only 8 per cent of women didn’t want children, and only 4 per cent wanted one child. By contrast, 55 per cent wanted two children; and the rest of the population three or more. For the average Western European woman, it is facts of life, such as the loss of income when a child is born, that discourage them from having as many children as they desire.

That's fantastic that western women want more babies. But they aint. Problem not solved.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

crocodile

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male

Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #53 - Feb 28^th, 2018 at 11:02pm

Bam wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:24pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:44pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:01pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 3:41pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 10:45am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 10:09am:

Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging.

You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term.

Immigration is at best a short term solution to the ageing population problem. The main problem with it is that a) immigrants age too, and b) immigrants invariably end up having the same number of children as the average - even if they originally came from high birth countries. So ultimately the only way for this solution to work is to forever continue to increase the immigration rate (to offset more and more ageing people) - which is obviously unsustainable.

Perhaps its time to embrace our ageing population and look at other more sustainable solutions like medical technology to make the elderly more productive and less of a burden to society, and an economy that is more and more based on automation.

The low birth rate is a direct consequence of 20% of the working age population having insufficient income. Eradicate poverty, and the birth rate will take care of itself.

Even with a fertility rate equal to the death rate it does not obviate the ageing population problem. At a fertility rate of 2 and an ageing population it will no longer be a stable population but one that still increases with time.

Incorrect. The replacement level of population isn't 2, but slightly higher than this, around 2.1, to account for some people not having children for various reasons. You're implying that the replacement level is below 2. That's frankly ludicrous.

Any tendency to increased longevity will not cause the population to increase in the long term. Once the demographics stabilises, so does population, if people are having children at the replacement rate with immigration replacing any shortfall in the birth rate.

I repeat - our high level of immigration is not sustainable. Immigrants won't usually leave the country on retirement. Many stay here - to become old people in need of support just like everyone else.

Nobody suggested that it was. Repeat until the cows come home if you want to. Nobody has come up with a viable alternative.

Back to top

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.

IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 54358
Gender: male

Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #54 - Mar 1^st, 2018 at 6:19pm

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 10:58pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:22pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:17pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:31pm:

Frank wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 8:02pm:

The great immigration deceit

https://spectatorau.imgix.net/content/uploads/2018/02/Capture-8.jpg
In 2015, the Germany fertility rate was at 1.5 births per woman. This is below the EU average, and far lower than the population ‘replacement rate’ of 2.1. By 2030, the proportion of working-age residents in Germany is also predicted to fall from 61 per cent to 54 per cent.

However, while it is true that Germany does face issues of demography, is mass immigration a practical solution to the problem? British writer Douglas Murray, in The Strange Death of Europe, gives an infallible argument against Merkel’s reasoning. Murray leaves no doubt in reader’s minds that the European Union’s most powerful official must be either critically incompetent; or a liar.

For one, Merkel’s reasoning ignores the fact, so clearly elucidated by Murray, that migrants themselves get older; thus causing the eternal need for ever more migrants as time progresses. As migrants enter Germany, they ensure that even greater numbers are required in future; and thus the process is doomed to repeat itself with a continually increasing rate of immigration. Merkel’s espoused strategy is not sustainable in the long-term; immaterial of the fact that many migrants require more money from the state, over their lifetime, than they could ever contribute in the form of taxation.

Merkel’s outlook towards demographics also ignores the essential truth behind why German birth rates are so low. When first ruminating on your nation’s low birth rate, any competent world leader would surely look at fixing the root causes of the problem; as opposed to immediately looking to import a million people. The low birth rates in Western Europe are not indicative of a continent that has shunned the idea of children, but instead portrays a continent where lifestyle factors have led women to decide against having large families. British research, quoted by Murray in The Strange Death of Europe, found that only 8 per cent of women didn’t want children, and only 4 per cent wanted one child. By contrast, 55 per cent wanted two children; and the rest of the population three or more. For the average Western European woman, it is facts of life, such as the loss of income when a child is born, that discourage them from having as many children as they desire.

When facing the migrant crisis in 2015, Merkel would surely have been aware of this sentiment in her own country. If she had any idea, then Merkel should have known that mass migration was not a viable long-term solution to account for low German birth rates. By fixing the root issues that are causing native Germans to have fewer children, Merkel would have been infinitely more successful in plugging the nation’s long-term demographic shortfall. Programs such a generous maternity leave, while expensive to implement, would largely negate any apparent ‘necessity’ for mass immigration from the third-world; and would avoid the litany of costs and threats to social cohesion that present themselves as a result.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2018/02/the-great-immigration-deceit/

Anyone who argues for mass third world immigration to the West is critically incompetent or a liar.

The article perfectly illustrates the problems. Nobody is suggesting that migration is the silver bullet and the great fix. All acknowledge it's inherent shortcomings and future pitfalls. The overriding issue is that nobody has come close to suggesting a viable alternative. This includes the author of the article.

Quote:

Anyone who argues for mass third world immigration to the West is critically incompetent or a liar.

That's fantastic but what are the alternatives.

The alternative is not to have mass third world immigration.

It is not worth it in any reckoning.

The article actually does show how to to maintain population - do not take away the incentive from Western women to have babies. They want more babies than they are having:

British research, quoted by Murray in The Strange Death of Europe, found that only 8 per cent of women didn’t want children, and only 4 per cent wanted one child. By contrast, 55 per cent wanted two children; and the rest of the population three or more. For the average Western European woman, it is facts of life, such as the loss of income when a child is born, that discourage them from having as many children as they desire.

That's fantastic that western women want more babies. But they aint. Problem not solved.

Which is why anyone who argues for mass third world immigration to the West is critically incompetent or a liar.

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg Gold Member Offline WE ARE BORG Posts: 26576 Australia	Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration Reply #55 - Mar 1^st, 2018 at 6:21pm Immigration isnt exactly the problem its made out to be since the govts are making sure that everyone goes to the cities they are getting more crowded. Reducing transport and sending jobs overseas - contributing to making the cities more crowded while not doing anything about housing. Spot
Back to top	Whaaaaaah! I'm a Moron! - edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 54358
Gender: male

Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #56 - Mar 1^st, 2018 at 6:23pm

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 11:02pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 9:24pm:

crocodile wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 7:44pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 6:01pm:

polite_gandalf wrote on Feb 28^th, 2018 at 3:41pm:

Bam wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 10:45am:

crocodile wrote on Feb 26^th, 2018 at 10:09am:

Amazing how people advocate for dropping immigration but can't articulate a solution to the fact that the population is aging.

You still haven't learned why you're wrong about this. Immigration is NOT at a level that maintains a stable population but is substantially greater than this. This population Ponzi scheme is not sustainable in the long term.

Immigration is at best a short term solution to the ageing population problem. The main problem with it is that a) immigrants age too, and b) immigrants invariably end up having the same number of children as the average - even if they originally came from high birth countries. So ultimately the only way for this solution to work is to forever continue to increase the immigration rate (to offset more and more ageing people) - which is obviously unsustainable.

Perhaps its time to embrace our ageing population and look at other more sustainable solutions like medical technology to make the elderly more productive and less of a burden to society, and an economy that is more and more based on automation.

The low birth rate is a direct consequence of 20% of the working age population having insufficient income. Eradicate poverty, and the birth rate will take care of itself.

Even with a fertility rate equal to the death rate it does not obviate the ageing population problem. At a fertility rate of 2 and an ageing population it will no longer be a stable population but one that still increases with time.

Incorrect. The replacement level of population isn't 2, but slightly higher than this, around 2.1, to account for some people not having children for various reasons. You're implying that the replacement level is below 2. That's frankly ludicrous.

Any tendency to increased longevity will not cause the population to increase in the long term. Once the demographics stabilises, so does population, if people are having children at the replacement rate with immigration replacing any shortfall in the birth rate.

I repeat - our high level of immigration is not sustainable. Immigrants won't usually leave the country on retirement. Many stay here - to become old people in need of support just like everyone else.

Nobody suggested that it was. Repeat until the cows come home if you want to. Nobody has come up with a viable alternative.

Because they - politicians, NGOs, public servants - are critically incompetent or they are liars.

Western women want to have children. But Western societies are organised so a lit of them do not have any, many have only one or two. Remove the crippling disincentives for having children and you do not need mass third world immigration.

The viable alternative you ask for is staring everyone in the face. Spend all that immigrant integration money on a population policy that support your own people. How's that for a viable alternative?

Back to top

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Brian Ross

Gold Member

Offline

Representative of me

Posts: 45222

Re: Abbott is right, we need to reduce immigration
Reply #57 - Mar 1^st, 2018 at 6:31pm

Frank wrote on Mar 1^st, 2018 at 6:23pm: