IT has been proven beyond any doubt whatsoever that the majority of people are not capable of living peacefully. Be it physical aggression, in writing or verbally. Prove is also in every history book that people, once they have it too good, start ruining everything by stupid indoctrinated idealism. People who cop it bad make things worse by not standing up against the oppressors. This is of course very often not possible because of repercussions made possible through inaction by those charged with the responsibility of stamping out oppression & corruption. This inaction is most prevalent in wealthier societies & the utter fanatical religious. One only has to look at the great wars last century. The biggest migration in the history of mankind was caused in that so-called enlightened century. Guess what? Nothing's been learned, on the contrary. Open the border & you open Pandora's box.

There is one furphy in the open borders debate and that is that an influx of immigrants will 'take' jobs. This is not the case unless the influx happens at a rate that surpasses the ability of infrastructure demands (more jobs) and the retail sector to rally quickly to demand. Growing populations generally mean more jobs. It is not about jobs but about diminishing resources, overcrowding and infrastructure.

In fact, the greatest threat to jobs is free trade and imports from countries where there is little governance and accountability. The real elephant in the room is being ignored while creating a mountain over a molehill on immigrant vs jobs.

The holistic idea of a global citizen is not a bad one, but it (IMO) only works if there is a sharing of values and conditions, a uniform standard in relation to industrial relations and other regulations that affect the health and wellbeing of citizens wherever they are. How can a truly legitimate 'free-flow' work if (the obvious) transfer of most of the world's citizens (billions) will be an osmotic effect from the poorest to the richest. Will that effect eventually stabilise? What until then, the obvious impacts cannot be just ignored just on the basis of an idealistic principle. Idealism has to be matched with pragmatism?

What about security issues? We can pretend all we like that they don't exist, and there is certainly some level of overreaction, but they are a factor in contemplating open borders.

Weighing it all up, I cannot see it working without insurmountable problems.

Thank bl00dy god that you naive idiots are not running the country.

Open borders you reckon?

Well then I hope you are prepared for Australia to have a massively increased incidence of tuberculosis and similar third world diseases, for domestic terrorism to increase and internation terrorim to operate from our shores.

Time you people put your emotions into neutral and put your pragmatism into gear.

Pelican says the greatest threat to jobs is free trade. I recently heard a similar sentiment from a trade union boss, urging us all not to buy imported fruit and vegetables (even though they may be cheaper). This, he said, would destroy jobs in the agricultural sector.

Both claims are manifestly false. Free trade creates new jobs by increasing trade. When we in Australia purchase imported food (and other goods) were are hardly destroying the jobs being created by this process in the countries from whence we have imported the products.

It would be more honest to speak of 'Australian jobs'. But this would merely reveal the absurdity of the notion that 'jobs' have a national character.

Sorry folks, but there is no such thing as an Australian job. There's just plain JOBS. And increasingly those in the manufacturing sector are being done outside of Australia, though we remain part of the process of globalised social production.

Adam Smith had it right when he pointed out that capital goes where labour is cheaper and labour goes where wages are higher.

Karl Marx took it further with the slogan "The working people have no country".

I think I can improve on David's brilliant ideas.

Why not, in the interest of world social justice and equity, prioritise the immigration of the elderly, the sick, the untrained, the unemployed and the infirm from the underdeveloped world?

In this way we can truly discharge or moral responsibilities to the underprivileged and rid ourselves of guilt.

Let us also pay airfares and provide accomodation, training and welfare support; in this way we can prove ourselves to be a truly generous and unselfish Nation.

Consider also at the benefits to our economy and our workforce - more work in building schools, hospitals, roads, reservoirs and housing for the new arrivals.

Unemployment will never be a problem whilstsoever this scheme continues; and the new arrivals may enjoy an undreamed of standard of living and enrich our multicultural lifestyle beyond measure.

A win win win outcome.

byork
Yes, that is the usual argument for free trade and it is a pervasive one. I don't want to stray too far off the main topic but in response to your post - How can a nation that pays its citizens fairly and ensures safety in food health compete on a level playing field with a nation that does not?

I don't see a problem with protecting national jobs - if all countries ensured job security for its citizens as first priority, including some trade (as no nation can supply all its needs) problems are resolved.

Corporations will target developing nations as there is little to stop them from wreaking widespread environmental damage. That is in no-one's national interest.

Read Chris Lewis's recent article on OLO 'An imperfect liberal democrat perspective' to see the effect of employees of barely living wages in Taiwan. Ethically and morally we in the West who generally enjoy high wages expect access to very cheap goods manufactured by people who are paid a pittance to provide those products. The irony is that the middlemen and retailers often add an extra margin on profits making the cost 'benefit' to consumers far less than is touted by supporters of free trade. It is not just about consumers but about workers.

One grocer was recently interviewed in relation to the imports of Chinese apples and said he would only sell them when local product supply was low but he would sell them at the same price as the Australian product to help Australian farmers. So no benefit to consumers, no benefit to the Chinese workers and farmers and desperately needed food in those areas goes OS instead of to the local market in the pursuit of foreign currency.