Dissatisfaction with immigration grows
Immigration has increased considerably since the late 1990s and between 2004 and 2007 the proportion of voters who want the intake to be reduced rose from 34 per cent to 46 per cent. While support for a reduction was highest in New South Wales, this support was already high in 2004. In relative terms support for a reduction rose most strongly in Victoria. This may be because, over the four-year period, Melbourne absorbed a greater proportion of Australia’s population growth than any other region. Despite growing electoral disquiet, the new Labor Government is increasing the immigration program to record levels.
Achieving population targets for Australia: an analysis of the options.

 This article reviews the role of migration in determining population size in Australia, and suggest ways of achieving a stationary population, or zero population growth (ZPG), when fertility is below replacement. There is a narrow range of feasible options. It is argued that achievement of ZPG is feasible only with net migration of 60,000-100,000 annually and with a fertility rate of 1.65-1.8 children/woman. Migration could be used to balance shortages of births. Under this scenario, population size would reach 24-26 million by about 2037, and stabilize at this level. The ZPG option was reached by conducting analyses that address 4 questions. The authors define 10 assumptions, 4 outcome measures of age distribution, the dependency ratio, and population turnover. Scenario 1 aims to reach the target population without a time constraint. Scenario 2 aims to stabilize population within 100 years with no constraint on population size. Scenario 3 aims to achieve a particular target stationary population within 100 years. Scenario 4 aims to achieve the population targets within 50 years and varying migration to maintain target population size. It is argued that using a lower target than 1.65 children/woman and zero migration would allow population size to decline to 12 million, but momentum would bring population size down to about 5.5 million in the next century. Allowing population to decline to very low levels without immigration would yield severe population aging. The proposed ideal option may not be attainable, if levels of fertility deviate widely, or emigration levels are not controlled.

Immigration and the dependency burden.
Several scenarios were presented to test whether immigration was sufficient to maintain the dependency burden in the US at its present levels. The cohort component method was used to obtain birth death and net immigration figures from single year of age data. Mortality data (Farber data) is the most recent and is adjusted to 1987 life expectancy at birth. Fertility (total fertility rate [TFR]) is assumed to have the same age structure in 1983. Immigrants have the same fertility and mortality as natives and do not bring dependents. Mortality remains at 1987 levels and declines at 1% or 2% at all ages. TFR is assumed to remain at the level of 1.842 (1985 data). Fertility will be changed by a moderate boom to 2.746 and a big baby boom to 3.2. The dependency burden is given as an average of .734 (DR1) for the period 1960-84 when the very young and the very old cost is the same; when the dependency costs are 2.5 for the aged and 1.0 for the young the dependency ratio is .986 (DR2). With need construed as .72 for those age 0-20 years 1.00 for those 20-64 years and 1.27 for those over 65 years the average value was .614 (DR3). In the base scenario DR1 rose 11% and DR2 and DR3 by >20%. DR1 can be kept constant by immigration increases of 800000/year in 1987 2 million in 2020 and 4 million in 2080. DR1 and DR3 could be kept constant if immigration equaled 14% of the projected population in that year; DR2 would rise in the midperiod and then fell to its initial level. It is unlikely that mortality and fertility rates will remain constant as assumed in the base scenario. IN the scenario with increased in mortality of 1-2% at all ages the dependency burden would be 3 times as high as the base scenario. Immigration in the base scenario would maintain the dependency measure increases to 23% in 1987 48% in 2020 and 40% in 2080 with DR1 constant and 1% mortality increases. 2% increases would increase DR1 by 68%. Immigration of 10 million/year would limit the rise in DR1 to 25% DR2 to 55% and DR3 to 45%. Another baby boom with a peak TFR of 2.7 would increase DR1 by about 20% above the base scenario until 2030 and then 5-10% thereafter. Increasing immigration to 2 million in 2020 and 4 million in 2080 would lower the increase in DR1 to the base scenario. Immigration at 4-10 million/year could not be absorbed into the labor market; compositional shifts in ethnicity would provoke strong public reactions.