Immigration should be democratic or based on a lottery, not determined by politicians according to the needs of Capitalists.
It's also perfectly reasonable to attack the Empire by starving it of its most precious resource, skilled workers.
Skilled Immigrant workers also always side with the Empire, labour votes, an imported worker is an imported vote for his benefactors.
Skilled workers should be using their skills in their own countries,for the benefit and prosperity of their own people, where they're needed most.
Taking skilled workers from the Developing world in particular is a crime against humanity.

CHERYL

I would value your input on the 'Maurice Strong' thread as you seem to have some ideas which would be valuable for that discussion.

You said:

//I don't want to give a helping hand to the anti-human league but they might find a more compelling argument attacking the alienating effects of technology and globalisation.//

You might know more than that comment suggests and I'd like to explore the depths a bit further in a more appropriate context (The other thread)

Loved your Lenin Stalin dialogue

HIGH POPULATION ..RIGHT LEFT POLITICS.

It seems that this topic (the thread) illustrates the Catch 22 and dilemna of modern politically polarized society.

1/ The Leftists want free immigration/no borders for 'human rights' reasons.
2/ The Capitalists want it for different reasons.. ie..cheap labor.

In the American situation.. it is freely admitted that the Democrats want more Latino's purely for political reasons. (support base)
The Republicans 'say' they want border protection, but scuttle any serious legislation to do just that. (BIGGG corporations need low labor costs)

It is also a 'given' that immigration is never about rights or compassion...except in a few uninformed minds. It is ALways about 'politics' and the chance to expand a parties voter base.
COALITION "Business" Migrants (Coalition Voters)
LABOR "Skills Migrants" (Labor voters)
GREENS "assylum seekers/open borders" "Green Voters"

So...ultimately it boils down to 'power' and the objective of increasing it.

One more point. The Capitalists (and the Left and Greens) also want a 'diverse' population.. but not for any reasons of human compassion or human rights.. it goes much deeper and further than that.

Ultimately.. the astute observe will find a convergence of interest between those calling themselves 'Capitalists' and those calling themselves 'Socialists'.

and yes..I do watch Glenn Beck :) see youtube I've recently promoted Beck to '4th member of the Trinity'

And I wonder who employs you? There is not one worker that's happy. Can you explain this.

TTM.

I actually find myself agreeing with Curmidgeon for once. Maybe he is not yet a lost cause.

As for the rest of the gobbledegook being spouted in this thread, I am beginning to think that none of your really know what you are talking about when you throw words like capitalist, socialist, left right, Marxist etc around. My advice, get a copy of the Fontana Dictionary of Modern Thought and actually look these things up. As for Cheryl saying that economics belongs to a particular faction, that is just plain ridiculous. I am always ready to look at economic analysis to support an argument, regardless of the view that is being put forth.

Why do I support immigration or more specifically skilled migration beyond my philosophical view that, as a nation of immigrants, it is hypocritical to deny others the opportunities that our forefathers have been given? Well, there is also the issue of our own brain drain. One need only look at the decline in enrolments for key skills such as medicine, engineering, IT and science to see that we are facing a serious problem in this country.

"it is hypocritical to deny others the opportunities that our forefathers have been given?"

My concern is that the problems of high immigration might deny many Australians opportunities that they might have otherwise had. Is this an ethical thing to do? Surely the objective of government should be to improve the lives of all, not the lives of some at the expense of others?

"One need only look at the decline in enrolments for key skills such as medicine, engineering, IT and science to see that we are facing a serious problem in this country."

My concern is that a country like Australia, with such wealth and privilege, should choose to pilfer skilled people from far less wealthy nations instead of training her own. What is the economic and social impact of having all these skilled people pilfered from countries where they are so desperately needed? What does it suggest about the ethics of a wealthy nation that has far more capacity to train her own citizens, yet chooses to pilfer them?

It concerns me that some will readily warn of the great calamity we face from a skills shortage, yet are apparently oblivious of the impact on countries from which they are acquired.

My view is that a wealthy nation like Australia has a moral obligation to maintain a positive skills balance (more skilled emigrants than immigrants), and should have some concern about the loss of skilled people from the developing world.