your "Call to Action" programme?
Paul1405,
What'd be yours ?

Indy,

My belief is Australia's immigration policy has to be both practical as well as having a humanitarian aspect. Above all it has to be sustainable in the long term. The argument generally comes down to two things, the humanitarian side, i.e refugees and family reunions, as well as overall numbers. The skills side of the equation is running at about 8 times the numbers in the humanitarian programme, which from a practical point of view is probably good for Australia, skilled migrants are generally an instant net asset to the country, where as refugees tend to be a long term liability. Numbers have be be flexible and adjusted to reflect changing economic circumstances and changing requirements.
With hindsight I think we have taken more people since 2005 than is economically sustainable. The problems of urban overcrowding in Sydney and Melbourne reflects at least bad planing policy by government if not a tendency to take more people than is sustainable into those two cities.

Your calls for punitive action against what you term "non citizens" smacks of authoritarianism, as a true liberal I do not support that nonsense.

Individual- At least you are loyal. I'd say your kind is much better. Concentric circles. Australia is not a business to exploit- it's our home. I remember great trees I climbed as a child- they've mostly been cut down. I'd be happier if there was less foreign cultures in Australia even if the economy was worse.

Your calls for punitive action against what you term "non citizens" smacks of authoritarianism, as a true liberal I do not support that nonsense.

Paul1405,
What exactly is punitive & authoritarian in curbing excessive demands from people who are not citizens ?
I think your dismissal of such demands at the expense to Australians is way more authoritarian.
There are certain privileges for citizens which must not automatically & at a whim of some humanitarian moment be extended to non-citizens who have not contributed sufficiently & that is not nonsense.
Humanitarian aid is something that must not be denied (tell that to those causing their people to flee) but privileges are a different story.
Let me ask a question which I hope you can answer in return. Would you consider it right or wrong to offer able-bodied young refugees the military support they'd need to return to their homelands & overthrow those who forced them to leave or should they simply exploit the humanitarian effort extended to them & thus enable the regimes of their homelands to cause more refugees?
What percentage of your wage would you be willing to forfeit to aid more refugees ?
My take on this is to encourage refugees to fight for their homelands & provide australian manufactured infrastructure to rebuild their homelands. This would in turn offer greater economic & social prosperity for both sides in my opinion.

Individual- As you've said just because the majority of Australians may not want to give their tax dollars to certain causes doesn't stop Paul1405 from giving to efforts to do the same. Ayn Rand says some interesting things about charity.

What 'has been' with immigration, 'up to now' and all that stuff, is a dead issue. What happened in the past is not happening now. We have to look to the future, and anyone who thinks our current mass immigration will be sustainable in the future is very much mistaken.