The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Reforming immigration policy: a libertarian suggestion > Comments

Reforming immigration policy: a libertarian suggestion : Comments

By Jonathan J. Ariel, published 8/5/2015

Why not sell the right to immigrate?

  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Immigration to Australia by entry fee sounds good to me. Australia offers benefits of political stability, generous welfare safety-net, space and warm climate that are worth a high price.

Hopefully it will become a long term program with bi-partisan support. I think however the ALP and Greens will reject it - so support of independents like Senator Leyonhjelm will be pivotal.

Too often the ALP has relied on stacking electorates with family reunions who will loyally vote Labor. So if/when Labor wins the 2016 Federal Election will a new entry fee immigration policy be tossed out?
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 8 May 2015 11:33:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A society has every right to impose whatever conditions it asks for membership - including charging a fee.

However, no society has a right over vast, mostly undeveloped, stretches of land, such as the Australian continent, including the right to impose conditions over entry and residence.

By all means, it is a good idea to charge a fee from people who want to join the Australian society and the social benefits that come with it, but one may not charge (or otherwise condition) others merely for entering this continent.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 8 May 2015 11:34:40 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Giday Yuyutsu

Your odd statement:

"However, no society has a right over vast, mostly undeveloped, stretches of land, such as the Australian continent, including the right to impose conditions over entry and residence"

begs questioning.

Are you suggesting that the UN (or some other none Australian process) should decide who populates Australia's (mostly water-resource poor) vast open spaces.

Or should it be terra nullius* and therefore open to whatever squatters row their canoes, or rickety refugee boats, to Australia?

Genuinely curious.

Pete

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terra_nullius
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 8 May 2015 11:51:07 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Pete,

Certainly not the UN or any other organisation has a right to determine where people can or should live.

Anyone should be able to arrive in the continent of Australia (subject to determination that they do not pose criminal and/or health risks), but unless they comply with the conditions and demands of Australian society they would have no social or civil rights and their legal status would be similar to that of animals.

Feral animals are not allowed in cities, unless adopted as pets by fully-responsible owners; they have no recourse to health and social services (their owner could of course pay a vet if they wish); they have no standing in court; they cannot have property registered in their name (in fact, they don't even need to have a name!); and if they become a nuisance on the land, destroying property, crops or livestock, then farmers should be allowed to shoot them (conforming to the best RSPCA laws and practices against unnecessary cruelty to animals).

In summary, humans must not be treated worse than other animals.
Posted by Yuyutsu, Friday, 8 May 2015 12:10:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Yuyutsu

Where you say "Anyone should be able to arrive in the continent of Australia (subject to..."

This is the nub of the chicken de egg issue. If someone speedily rows their outrigger to Australia it be bloody difficult to dislogde them without herds of Public Servants and worse still, Lawyers! (excuse the French tah).

Should there be some biological warfare solution like Myxomatosis for humans I hear you say.

Well Apartheid South Africa was accused of many anti-social things but they were nothing if not creative.

Zee answer the Productivity Commission has been working on is an Oz version of "Project Coast".

Before the foibles of peace and humanity triumphed the Projekt involved:

"Research on birth control methods to reduce the black birth rate. Herr Doktor Dirk von Blitz-Abbott, Managing Director, Rootplease Research Laboratories between 1983 and 1986, told Tom Mangold of the BBC that Project Coast supported a project to develop a contraceptive that would have been applied clandestinely to black peoples.

Blitz-Abbott reported that the project had developed a vaccine for males and females and that the researchers were still searching for a means by which it could be delivered to make blacks sterile without making them aware.

Testimony given at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) suggested that Project Coast researchers were also looking into putting birth control substances in water supplies."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Coast#As_a_component_of_racial_warfare

Permanent solution to rampant refugees who rave? Not yet Liberal Party policy but Tony and main squeeze Peta are working on it.
Posted by plantagenet, Friday, 8 May 2015 12:49:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Don't we do that already Jon?

I mean for the self funded retiree immigrant, there are all sorts of conditions, including self sustaining retirement (pay to stay) funding!

I mean why are we trying to sell or privatize everything not nailed down; all while turning our collective backs, thanks to blinkered leaders, on self terminating thirty year bonds?

Which would I'm sure, in today's climate, be far more popular among self funded retirees, than almost any other form of investment?

And which would guarantee, a known return for at least thirty years.

There are millions of well to do, self funded retirees all over Europe, trying to find a more hospitable home for themselves and their accrued and already taxed funds; due to the possibility, these savings/earnings, may be taxed yet again?

Even so, they already pay a VAT, that is hovering a round 15% on everything, in some countries?

If we but had the wisdom to create a single stand alone tax system, like an expenditure tax, that hit you just once; and everybody fairly, we'd likely attract many millions of cashed up Caucasian Christian retirees, who just want to know where they stand!

We should roll out publicly provided energy solutions, which at the least, halved the price of electricity.

Self funded retirees replete with mandatory private health insurance, don't need to have schools/child care centres built near them, bring serious and increasing demand for low skill services, take up the huge slack in private health care; and spend their income in the local economy!

Which by the way, sent Q'ld surging ahead when Joh abolished (spend a sprat to catch a mackerel) death duties!

And retirees, would likely settle where the housing doesn't cost an arm or a leg? Another plus!

And as such all but created the relatively new, built entirely in my lifetime. Gold and Sunshine Coasts!
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Friday, 8 May 2015 1:00:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. Page 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy