There is nothing in the constitution that says that non-citizens have right of access to our courts or unquestioned entry into the country!

What about your own children Vu?

Are you prepared to risk their future by allowing unsustainable levels of immigration in an utterly pointless attempt to save the developing world?

Don't you think your children should be allowed to have a say on this issue?

After all it will be their future that will be most effected by your/our decisions. You and I will most likely be dead and gone long before the consequences of unsustainable immigration, that you presumeably advocate, start to really bite.

The third world cannot be and will never be saved through immigration to the west.

There is something of the order of a billion or two people throughout the developing world living in or close to poverty.

How many successfully make it to the west and start new lives each year? Several tens of thousand perhaps?

Even if the west allowed a few million third worlders to re-settle each year, at huge cost to us and our own children, it would make a negligeable difference to the number of humans suffering in the developing world given the rate that their populations are increasing.

For the vast majority of them there is no hope of immigrating to the west.

We would be far more effective at reducing the suffering of future generations in the third world by unleashing a biological fertility control vector.......assuming a suitable one could be developed that causes no wider harm to the human species. No doubt current generations of third worlders would be outraged if they realised but then short term pain for long term gain.......

It will eventually come down to a choice between short lived third world outrage or unprecedented human suffering as mother nature kicks in to control our numbers - famine, plague, war and genocide etc.

Interesting comments Martin. However despite our media bombardment in many parts of the world peace is taking hold as the norm, wealth is growing and living standards are rising. It is not all bad news. I think reform of agricultural trading protections from the US and EU would probably be the single biggest positive step we could take with the quickest return. Fixing institutional basket case nations and regions takes time, generations. It is not, in my opinion, simply our fault that such regions exist.

Hmmm... so, those living on less than $1 per day appear to hold the power in your world view? I suspect they do not see it that way.

Fertility is no mystery. Economic development leads to dramatic reductions in fertility, and you can turbo charge this with an extra focus on the education and empowerment of women. Iran achieved an extraordinary reduction in fertility in just one generation, and gave themselves one of the best levels of women's education in the developing world.

So I assume you are in fervent favour of aggressive policies to grow developing nation economies through an increased foreign aid effort, ongoing reforms to agricultural and trade restrictions, exporting our strong governance institutions, primary health care to give women confidence that if they only have two children they will both live beyond five years of age, other measures to raise the lot of women in the developing world and, on the understanding that this takes some time, continue to accept arrivals both in the security interests of easing the pressure and the moral imperative of helping those who are desperately poor? Or were you thinking of something more... draconian?

Thanks for this article. I am struggling to form a view I can hold with sincerity regarding Australia's most suitable role in a very complex world system. As an island developed nation I am increasingly finding it hard to accept that our best role is as a landing point to make claims for asylum, particularly claims with a point of origin on the other side of the world. But I am a strong believer in both a moral imperative and the practical benefits of our high intake levels, and the contribution we can make to durable improvements in the conditions in other parts of the world. Our liberal approach to trade protectionism for example is something to be very proud of, if only Europe and the US would follow suit. The so-called overpopulation argument people like to trot out against this is a call to improve our own sustainability in my opinion, which is quite woeful.

Anyway, this gave me a few more things to think about. I'll read comments with interest from those trying to take an enlightened view of this issue.

Greg, if you think that's the only part of your comments that could be misconstrued...

Well Mark, like it or not you are stuck with me!

If you are happy to allow the global population to rise to 9-10 billion because you don't want break the taboo of questioning freedom of human reproduction then will almost certainly get a massive increase in islamic (and other religions probably) extremists in the coming decades.

Simply because there will be vastly more young males with not enough food to eat and not enough paid work etc.

Well just remember Mike that you privaledge latte set are a minority in this particular western society.

You don't have to live with the daily reality of what you advocate in places like Broadmeadows etc.

So if you think so poorly about our attitudes then you best consider leaving!

I think Australia has invented a major variation on Godwin's Law: in every discussion of assylum or immigration someone will always try to shut down their rhetorical opponent by comparing their position to the 'white australia policy'. That someone will automatically have lost the argument.
The key word at the start of your little tirade against me was 'presumably'. You presumed I said something you didn't like because I am some kind of crypto-racist. Sloppy thinking mate. You presumed wrong.
If the people we are talking about who are presently attempting to throw themselves at the mercy of our country were genuinely motivated by the need to avoid persecution, why do they they pass through scores of safe countries and instead striving to reach here? I have never heard an open-borders advocate answer this point convincingly. Are you perhaps claiming that Australia is the only country in the region civilised enough to be a safe destination? If so, I'd say it might be you who actually harbours a derogatory colonial view of Asia...
At the end of the day we are a democracy and although it pains you to acknowledge it most Australians want to retain the right to decide exactly who joins our community and who doesn't- not abdicate that choice to some overseas organised crime syndicate. In a democracy you change things by convincing people of the merit of your ideas, not by just slandering them as racists and insisting their opinions are invalid.

Burying your head in the sand about this Mark will not make the problem go away or allow you to solve it more easily or faster.

All that your hesitation does is feed apathy and the wider view that over population really isn't that bad a problem and does not need urgent measures to solve it.

Injecting a little bit of justifiable alarmism into the debate is exactly what is needed to generate a little more urgency.

I would hate to see the situation get so bad that biological fertility control vectors, enforced one child policies and enforced contraception etc become necessary.

But I assure you that these will be the least of our global problems if we do not start acting on over population with a little urgency.

Consider what is happening across the middle east at present - Syria, Libia and Iran etc.

That is a taster for what will inevitably come to Australia along with the hordes of developing world refugees who will seek to settle in Australia in future decades.

Well you just toddle off and stick your head back in that bucket of sand mate.

I don't deny that emancipation of woman is very effective at reducing their fertility.........on a small scale.

But I do question its effectiveness on a global scale however.

I question your ability to acheive a significant global population reduction, before we find ourselves in another dark ages, based on this strategy alone.

It has its place in a global strategy but we need a great deal more.

Afghanistan's population is rising fast. How successful do you realisitically think you will be in emancipating Afghan woman for example????

No mike I am nor refering to biological warfare.

The aim would be to produce an easily transmissible vector that temporarily (months or weeks) renders either males or females infertile but is otherwise harmless.

Multiplied across 7 billion humans that could signficantly reduce overall fertility.

No one need die and no one need be permanently sterilised.

It is alternative to Ehrlich's (I think it was?) proposal to put some sort of chemical in the water supplies.

Plenty of former immigrants would not want refugees squatting on their lawns either Mike.

It seems that there is a proportion of white skinned westerners that are aflicted with 'white guilt' syndrome, and clearly you are one of them.

If you want to work off your guilt Mike then volunteer as an aid worker and go and help the refugees in their own countries.

Don't foist your guilt on the rest of us by seeking to bring refugees to Australia so that you can help them from the comfort of Australia!!!!

Incidently Mike, I don't have a problem with Australia contributing to the solution to poverty by allowing SOME refugees/immigrants to re-settle here.

As long as the annual intake is compatible with zero net population growth in Australia.

My problem is primarily with sufferers of 'white guilt' syndrome and their grandiose save the third world delusions.

"you still can't name a place where emancipating women has failed to bring down fertility rates."

It may marginally bring down fertility rates but it just aint enough!

Many major fisheries have or are close to collapsing, we have anthropogenic climate change to deal with, we have major pollution problems near all major population centres that is spreading across the globe, we have food insecurity and political instability in many parts of the world,........

And that is with 7 billion humans soon to become 9-10 billion by 2050 or so.

Western enlightened civilisationis at a precipice people. Whether or not we ave the fortitude to do what may be necessary to prwill event that 9-10 billion from being will determine whether our civilisation continue or whether we will enter another dark ages for who knows how long.

We can listen to the emotional bleating of you caffe latte sipping nit witts like you lot or we can at least try to do something about it even if it means pursuing morally confronting means.

"Your authoritarian ideas are exactly the sort of half-baked nonsense which will lead to the environmental movement being pilloried and marginalised"

Perhaps the environment movement's problem has been that it been seen to be weak, indecisive and to affraid of upsetting minority humanist groups. You can't make an omlette without breaking some eggs. You don't inspire respect by continually giving ground on your principals.

And one principle that the environment movement should stand upappologetically on is that you can't solve poverty and environmenal damage etc without first solving over population.

Not sure that I agree with all Greg's views on the solution to overpopulation, but do share his concern about world overpopulation & it's likely consequences in the future. There are arguments here: - http://www.postcarbon.org/blog-post/939758-on-fighting-climate-change-with-family - stating that in fact many overpopulated areas that do have the provision of free or affordable contraceptives, refuse to use it for cultural or religious reasons. It would seem religion & culture may be obstacles in trying to reach a sustainable population on the planet - without which, we will see ever-more refugees from wars, famine, environmental & social catastrophes.

What an unrealsitic view you have of your own country.

http://waterwatchadelaide.net.au/index.php?page=water-for-many-uses

Mining accounts for 1% of the total water usuage across Australia.

Food and fibre production accounts for 80% of water usuage across Australia.

Ban mining and you will make negligeable difference to Australia's water consumption or the number of extra refugees/immigrants that can come here!!!

Also please note Andrew, that domestic water consumption is 9 times the magnitude of mining water consumption.

If we increase our refugee/immigrant intake signficantly domestic water consumption will increase signficantly.

That can only mean that food and fibre water consmption must decrease.

If that continued then eventually domestic output of food and fibre will fall below domestic demand for it. Australia will then be a net importer of all food and fibre products in a world where many countries are already no longer self sufficient.

Consider this global map of food self sufficiency:
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6B8UFV2Sgm8/TZIZAkawmGI/AAAAAAAAHFE/g2N9Ef-v6dA/s1600/world-food-export-import-ratio.jpg

Green = high self sufficiency, red = poor self sufficiency.

Now consider the correlation between high population densities, low food sufficiency and political instability!

Increasing Australia's population through humanitarian immigration will not solve those problems.

On the contrary it will make those problems even harder to solve.

So you above point makes an excellent argument for turning the boats and planes away!

WHAT.....A......LOAD.....OF.....ABSOLUTE.......CRAP!

Where do I start with illuminating your ignorant and blinkered mind!

Australia might be rich in iron oar etc but we ARE NOT rich in water and fertile soils.
Take a look at the geology and climate/rainfall of this continent and then come back in here and make some sensible comments!

No one will be rich and prosperous if there is not enough fresh water to meet the needs and wants of an increased Australian population.

And desalination plants and piping water from the north are not economically viable or ecologically sustainable solutions to our water problems!

Australians losing jobs to immigrants has little to do with ability and far more to do who will accept the lower wage and lower standard of living. An excessive immigrant driven race to the bottom is not in this country's long term interests!

"We should declare our land unusable because we ourselves aren't willing to move there and convert it?"

Oh yeah Cyn. Then let's see you get off your soap box, go and live in a shack in the outback and show us all how it is done, how to open up this country for a larger population and to create job opportunities for hundreds of thousands of new Australians.

If you can do it then I will bow to your superior wisdom and drop my opposition to excessive immigration!

Farmers are being forced off their land across the country, or being forced to take government hand outs, due to drought and the fact that their farms are no longer economically viable as a result.

Can you do better Cyn?