From the 1986 song by Mike & the Mechanics.

Take the children and yourself
And hide out in the cellar
By now the fighting will be closed at hand
Don't believe the church and state
And everything they tell you
Believe in me, I'm with the high command

Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?

There's a gun and ammunition
Just inside the doorway
Use it only in emergency
Better you should pray to God
The father and the spirit
Will guide you and protect from up here

Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?

Swear allegiance to the flag
Whatever flag they offer
Never hint at what you really feel
Teach the children quietly
For someday sons and daughters
Will rise up and fight while we stood still

Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?

Can you hear me, can you hear me running?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
Can you hear me running, can you hear me calling you?
Can you hear me?

Hear me calling you
Can you hear me running, hear me running, babe?
Can you hear me running, hear me running?
Calling you, calling you ?

Shockadelic

"must" x 18. Spot on. Valerie is a indeed a totalitarian, not a democrat.

Democracies set rules on how people behave, they don't tell them what they must think.

Despite all those ugly "must"s, Valerie has a point:

Citizenship is a contract between a person/family and a group of people, so that group, whether democratic or otherwise, may set whatever membership-conditions they like, even insane conditions if they so desire - take it or leave it.

But two problems arise:

1) The group in question, comprising mostly of those born in Australia, was never consulted about belonging to that group in the first place and most of them have never consented to its constitution. A few members are thus dictating conditions of entry in the name of all others, who may well disagree. Note that democracy is irrelevant because it only applies within that constitution, for those who voluntarily accepted that constitution.

2) The question of membership is currently linked with allowing people to come and live in this continent, something which no group of people is morally allowed to prevent, regardless of its internal organisation (for example, democratic).

Once those two problems are corrected, then for sure citizenship will be a fair case of "take it or leave it".

Yuyutsu, I agree with your second point.
We have never given our consent to any particular immigration program.

Your first point is a bit dubious.
People can't help where or to whom they're born (unless you believe we choose the circumstances of our reincarnation, and if you do, you shouldn't migrate as you are betraying your destiny).

Once of adult age though, (and only adults vote in democracies) they can choose to leave this group (Australia) and join another.

We should stop all immigration until a truly democratic policy is debated and decided about what we really want in that department, no matter who may be "offended" or ultimately excluded.

Dear Shockadelic,

Although being agreed with feels nice, from the rest of your response I'm afraid that this agreement is not likely based on having understood what I wrote.

Let me rephrase:

There are two issues here, which I believe should be separate:

One is citizenship and the other is where one lives. The latter includes both migration and the ability to remain where one was born.

Groups of people may organise themselves in any way they like, so long as membership in those groups is voluntary. When doing so, groups are not obliged to admit in anyone else and may impose whatever conditions they want on accepting others.

On the other hand, it is wrong for groups of people to assert exclusive ownership over large areas of land.

There are certain easements which do legitimately allow a group of people to exclude others from their land ('others' here is not limited to humans). In the most broad terms, that is when allowing others would disturb their peace. This may apply in the case of extensively developed and populated areas, such as cities, but cannot apply in the case of a whole continent.

So neither those who are born in a certain location nor those who migrate there, should need to have anything to do with the social structure of that place, even if the majority of the people there adhere to that structure, so long as they do not threaten the peace of the inhabitants.

It is OK to refuse membership in your society.
It is not OK to restrict free movement of people as long as they are not likely to disturb your peace.

Bringing in 'democracy' is a red herring: democracy is something to do with the internal organisation of a group. While you may support or oppose it, it is meaningless until and unless one has actually agreed to become one of that group and abide by its constitution.

"On the other hand, it is wrong for groups of people to assert exclusive ownership over large areas of land."

Yuyutsu, we are material beings who need physical space to live in.

You support the establishment of voluntary groups who can *exclude* others.
How can they do this without a "territory"?

If people you would like to exclude can just move into your "space" anyway, how do you maintain your group's existence and access to vital resources?

Why do think all these exclusive territories exist in the first place?

Because that enabled the perpetuation of social groups (Tibetans, Irish, Finnish, etc).

Since no person (other than prisoners) are *prevented* from leaving these groups and their territories, those who stay are implicitly giving their consent.

"nor those who migrate there, should need to have anything to do with the social structure of that place"

If anything, immigrants are the only people who have *explicitly* "agreed to become one of that group and abide by its constitution".

But native-born have also done so by default.

They also have the option to migrate themselves.
If they choose not to, they are implicitly accepting the same conditions.

How do know *beforehand* whether immigrants will "disturb the peace"?
That is an impossible task and therefore unworkable as policy.

But policy can be based on probabilistic predictions.

We do know that the Dutch and Latvians are related to Australians and have similar cultures and Egyptians and Samoans are not related and have dissimilar cultures.

Who is *probabilistically* more likely to "disturb the peace"?
Similar/related or Dissimilar/unrelated?