No! What you talking about is the smartest! Open all borders and welcome in the entire world:)

Plenty of room:) Come on in....the waters fine:)

BLUE:)

As a concept, opening borders to all-comers is an idea that is ahead of its time. But the personal, ethical battle between being a citizen of a country, and a citizen of the world, is one that will only intensify in years to come.

In every dimension, the world has shrunk considerably in the past hundred years. Travel, communication, trade, all are unrecognizable from the perspective of 1911 - a year when my grandfather was about to enter his teens. One of the inescapable corollaries of this is that we are now able to see the rest of the world, not just second-hand through the eyes of traders and missionaries, but through the camera lens, and in real time.

While this is initially disturbing to many people, and heightens their distrust of anything remotely "foreign", eventually the realization that we need to see the world as a unit, not as a bunch of competing egos, will dawn upon us.

Not my generation, of course, which is steeped in the concept of "Má vlast". But I am already seeing clear signs that the youth of today - who are far more globally connected than any previous generation - actually care less about boundaries and borders, and see humanity in a far more holistic fashion.

My guess is that the question here - open borders - will continue to be political suicide for the next twentyfive years or so, while the post-war population bulge shuffles its way off this mortal coil. The debate will become more practical and pragmatic for the twentyfive years after that, until open borders becomes the default position.

By then we will have come to terms with the practicalities, and be creative in the manner in which we ensure the result is positive for the country as a whole. We might even become more influential in global affairs, if we are at the same time able to grow both in education and in culture.

Boaz - you went very quiet on the question of your forebears. Is there any reason for this?

Pericles, I concur with your point about the younger generation having a different attitude to borders and a greater sense of belonging to a global culture. I have experienced the same thing among teenagers in particular. The world is not just shrinking but there is far more dynamism and fluidity in peoples' movements across countries. At any one point, for instance, a million Australians are somewhere else. I have no doubt the future generations, travelling from place to place with minimal bureaucratic obstacles, will look back with the same bewilderment that we (most of us) now look back on the White Australia policy.

David ,
Your Plan to open the borders to virtually unlimited Immigration is to me unthinkable.

Your Philosophy of People before the Environment will result in irreversable destruction of Natural Australia, which doesn't really seem to bother you .

No doubt you have a large and interesting Museum building Plan also on the drawing board .

Australia has too many people now !

Ethically, politically and philosophically I find myself in agreement with the author. But economically, he's barking up the wrong tree, and the reason he is so wide of the mark is that his analysis has completely ommitted the field of biology known as ecology. Which kind of renders his argument null and void, 'coz it's never reasonable to sweep well-established scientific principles such as 'carrying capacity' under the rug when they get in the way of your philosophy.

Dear Loudmouth,

I am sure your knees are much too charming to break. I agree with you on your scepticism of Capitalism and Socialism, neither taken to extreme is optimal for great governance.

As was demonstrated in the Global Financial Collapse and recently in the massive flood disaster there are times when the government must step in and apply socialist policy, that is the using of government moneys or resources to protect and save the social fabric of a whole community or country. I doubt whether the Insurance Companies(private enterprise) will have enough money to bail everyone out in a disaster as big in devastation as these floods.

Some disasters to the community such as the Global Financial Crisis happen because governments commonly make the mistake of thinking democracy stands for let Capitalists rule. They should reflect that “ Demos” in the word democracy means governance for the people. If the excesses or bad decisions of executive capitalists or free enterprise starts to threaten large sections of the community, or the community as a whole then the Government must apply socialist,Demos brakes.

On the other hand if the socialist mindset starts to destroy the viability of enterprise then the government should apply some restriction here as well.

I agree with your belief that it is a Democratic duty of the Government to train skilled workers and not poach workers whose training has been paid for overseas.
As the Government sells more government run assets to Private enterprise such as the Railways etc. it abandons the great apprenticeship training schemes that exsisted in these industries and does not seem to replace them with any great financial input into other training sources.

A true Democratic government of substance has to walk a firm line between getting the balance right in allowing the free market and free enterprise to flourish which I strongly believe in and protecting the community as a whole from social disintegration which I also believe in.
I guess that makes me a Capitalist,Socialist. A believer in true Democracy.