4 ms·

Australia has huge lands, few people, a lot of local resources and not as much immigration as the US or West Europe. It's not a surprise.

jackvalentine 10y ago
> not as much immigration as the US or West Europe. I'm pretty sure Australia has a higher immigration rate than the U.S (a quick google supports this) and our net immigration rate is papering over some of the structural issues in our economy in turn helping us avoid a recession.
- Consultant32452 10y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d... In particular, read the Notes section next to the US. Our immigration rate, if you counted it the same way, is about the same as Australia. But comparing US immigration to Australia immigration is apples to oranges. Australia has quite strict regulations on who it accepts as immigrants, and doesn't even accept a single refugee. Meanwhile the US has an illegal immigration population that dwarfs the legal one, we basically don't have a Southern border.
  - unlikelymordant 10y ago
    Australia takes 0 refugees? "Australia’s humanitarian refugee intake will be set at 18,750 people per year, making it the third largest humanitarian programme in the world." https://www.businessinsider.com.au/australias-refugee-intake-will-rise-35-to-19000-a-year-2016-9 https://www.businessinsider.com.au/australias-refugee-intake...
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]
  - jackvalentine 10y ago
    > and doesn't even accept a single refugee I assume you came to this misunderstanding because of our (legally and morally dubious) policy of not settling refugees that arrive by boat. I assure you we do accept refugees. Other posters have dealt with your other factual misconceptions than I can, but a personal appeal from me to resist posting with a sense of authority on a topic you apparently are so unqualified to make statements about.
  - dragonmum 10y ago
    > Australia has quite strict regulations on who it accepts as immigrants, and doesn't even accept a single refugee. Lets not forget that all Australians except for Aboriginal people are technically immigrants.
    - dragonsky 10y ago
      Nope. Was born here as were my parents. In no way could be classified as an immigrant. By your standards even the Aborigines are immigrants, having arrived some 60000 years ago.
      - coolg54321 10y ago
        Then everyone on this planet are immigrants!
    - dragonsky 10y ago
      Nope. Was born here as were my parents. In no way could be classified as an immigrant. By your standards even the Aborigines are immigrants, having arrived some 60000 years ago.
    - strken 10y ago
      The defining feature of an immigrant is the act of immigration. Nobody born an Australian is an immigrant, regardless of whether their ancestors arrived by aeroplane, by boat, or by foot and canoe, unless they've chosen to emigrate. There is no technicality by which they can be considered an immigrant.
    - exodust 10y ago
      Depends what your definition of 'terra nullius' is, and whether you believe that Aboriginal people were 'uncivilised' and if they were uncivilised then can another country claim legal settlement of that land for that reason. The debate will never cease. In the thousands of years Aboriginal people had here, it's a pity they didn't unite in greater numbers, and have the foresight to build a few permanent structures as symbols of a united people, both for their own reasons and in anticipation of invaders from across the seas. Upon seeing obvious signs of a united people, impressions would have been different. But they didn't have a sense of ownership of the land. It never occurred to them that other humans may come and want what they had. They were unprepared. It puzzles me why they couldn't envision such an invasion, when they would invade each others tribes routinely. They were not strangers to war and conflict including turf wars over hunting grounds. But they failed to unite as one people, probably due to the huge distances in Australia, but still... 40,000 years was plenty of time to get organised.
  - MarkMc 10y ago
    > we basically don't have a Southern border. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say you didn't have a southern border. From 2005 net immigration from Mexico has been negative: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/ http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-...
    - Consultant32452 10y ago
      When our economy collapsed net immigration went negative for a bit. That's not the same as the border being enforced.
a_bonobo 10y ago
Australia has massive immigration - in 2012, Australia had one of the highest net immigration rates, more than twice that of the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migra... Here's an entire article on how Australia's high immigration may mask a recession: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-19/high-immigration-masks-australian-economic-decline/8193628 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-19/high-immigration-masks...
- letitgo12345 10y ago
  It's mostly highly skilled immigration. V diff from the US where most immigration is low skilled.
  - flukus 10y ago
    There are some legitimate highly skilled migrants. But for the most part is just a abused to employ unskilled people, or to underpay skilled ones.
- ptaipale 10y ago
  Moreover, Australia is able, and does, select who migrates to the country and who does not. The Wikipedia table about net migration to each country isn't the whole truth, however. For instance, it shows a significant negative net migration for Greece (-12.34 per 1000 pop) although in reality there are lots of migrants all over in Greece.
  - flukus 10y ago
    Not willing though. We have "Customer Service Managers" on skilled visas waiting on tables.
  - odabaxok 10y ago
    It's data from 2012. Following the citation on Wikipedia: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.NETM?year_high_desc=true http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.NETM?year_high_de...

jackvalentine 10y ago

> not as much immigration as the US or West Europe. I'm pretty sure Australia has a higher immigration rate than the U.S (a quick google supports this) and our net immigration rate is papering over some of the structural issues in our economy in turn helping us avoid a recession.

Consultant32452 10y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_dependent_territories_by_immigrant_population https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sovereign_states_and_d... In particular, read the Notes section next to the US. Our immigration rate, if you counted it the same way, is about the same as Australia. But comparing US immigration to Australia immigration is apples to oranges. Australia has quite strict regulations on who it accepts as immigrants, and doesn't even accept a single refugee. Meanwhile the US has an illegal immigration population that dwarfs the legal one, we basically don't have a Southern border.
- unlikelymordant 10y ago
  Australia takes 0 refugees? "Australia’s humanitarian refugee intake will be set at 18,750 people per year, making it the third largest humanitarian programme in the world." https://www.businessinsider.com.au/australias-refugee-intake-will-rise-35-to-19000-a-year-2016-9 https://www.businessinsider.com.au/australias-refugee-intake...
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
- jackvalentine 10y ago
  > and doesn't even accept a single refugee I assume you came to this misunderstanding because of our (legally and morally dubious) policy of not settling refugees that arrive by boat. I assure you we do accept refugees. Other posters have dealt with your other factual misconceptions than I can, but a personal appeal from me to resist posting with a sense of authority on a topic you apparently are so unqualified to make statements about.
- dragonmum 10y ago
  > Australia has quite strict regulations on who it accepts as immigrants, and doesn't even accept a single refugee. Lets not forget that all Australians except for Aboriginal people are technically immigrants.
  - dragonsky 10y ago
    Nope. Was born here as were my parents. In no way could be classified as an immigrant. By your standards even the Aborigines are immigrants, having arrived some 60000 years ago.
    - coolg54321 10y ago
      Then everyone on this planet are immigrants!
  - dragonsky 10y ago
    Nope. Was born here as were my parents. In no way could be classified as an immigrant. By your standards even the Aborigines are immigrants, having arrived some 60000 years ago.
  - strken 10y ago
    The defining feature of an immigrant is the act of immigration. Nobody born an Australian is an immigrant, regardless of whether their ancestors arrived by aeroplane, by boat, or by foot and canoe, unless they've chosen to emigrate. There is no technicality by which they can be considered an immigrant.
  - exodust 10y ago
    Depends what your definition of 'terra nullius' is, and whether you believe that Aboriginal people were 'uncivilised' and if they were uncivilised then can another country claim legal settlement of that land for that reason. The debate will never cease. In the thousands of years Aboriginal people had here, it's a pity they didn't unite in greater numbers, and have the foresight to build a few permanent structures as symbols of a united people, both for their own reasons and in anticipation of invaders from across the seas. Upon seeing obvious signs of a united people, impressions would have been different. But they didn't have a sense of ownership of the land. It never occurred to them that other humans may come and want what they had. They were unprepared. It puzzles me why they couldn't envision such an invasion, when they would invade each others tribes routinely. They were not strangers to war and conflict including turf wars over hunting grounds. But they failed to unite as one people, probably due to the huge distances in Australia, but still... 40,000 years was plenty of time to get organised.
- MarkMc 10y ago
  > we basically don't have a Southern border. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say you didn't have a southern border. From 2005 net immigration from Mexico has been negative: http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-than-coming-to-the-u-s/ http://www.pewhispanic.org/2015/11/19/more-mexicans-leaving-...
  - Consultant32452 10y ago
    When our economy collapsed net immigration went negative for a bit. That's not the same as the border being enforced.

a_bonobo 10y ago

Australia has massive immigration - in 2012, Australia had one of the highest net immigration rates, more than twice that of the US. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migration_rate https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_net_migra... Here's an entire article on how Australia's high immigration may mask a recession: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-19/high-immigration-masks-australian-economic-decline/8193628 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-19/high-immigration-masks...

letitgo12345 10y ago
It's mostly highly skilled immigration. V diff from the US where most immigration is low skilled.
- flukus 10y ago
  There are some legitimate highly skilled migrants. But for the most part is just a abused to employ unskilled people, or to underpay skilled ones.
ptaipale 10y ago
Moreover, Australia is able, and does, select who migrates to the country and who does not. The Wikipedia table about net migration to each country isn't the whole truth, however. For instance, it shows a significant negative net migration for Greece (-12.34 per 1000 pop) although in reality there are lots of migrants all over in Greece.
- flukus 10y ago
  Not willing though. We have "Customer Service Managers" on skilled visas waiting on tables.
- odabaxok 10y ago
  It's data from 2012. Following the citation on Wikipedia: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.NETM?year_high_desc=true http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SM.POP.NETM?year_high_de...