Col Rouge wrote:

"I would suggest the person or persons who are, already, where others would seek to "occupy" should have some say in the matter. That has been a common human practice since the time people occupied caves and built their earliest shelters and tends to suggest the notion that people follow a pattern of free migration (like birds) is a load of budgie pooh.

I for one would resist the occupation of Australia by religious zealots of any ethnicity who would choose to cast out the values I hold dear and replace them with something inferior which favoured their own cast.

I would suggest, someone wishing to go wherever they want should first seek permission of those already where they want to be and comply with the laws and conditions for acceptance. If they do not have sufficient respect for the laws of the recipient land to do that, then they obviously lack the values and temperament to make a success of eventual "assimilation" from their anticipated migration. "

*From an Indigenous perspective I couldn't agree with you more. But I doubt you'd be agreeing with me for the same historically comparative reasons. But don't let me hold you back.

Philo,
you raised a smile on my face:
I do not, however, deserve such compliments as I am far from being such a holy and enlightened saint as you portray me.

On the one extreme, it is obviously impractical (though sentimental) to expect ordinary people like myself and yourself to turn the other cheek and open our doors to drunk street youth, but on the other extreme, it is unfair to demand those wishing to live on the land to become "proud citizens" - the humble expectation that they do not significantly harm us or our property and environment should suffice. One thing is that we do not have to accept anyone as a citizen or member of our society (and feed and support them), yet another is denying them the right to walk the face of the earth, even if we do not like them (assuming they pose no harm!).

Col Rouge,
accepting dangerous religious zealots is certainly not on my cards, nor do I support the Left as such: what I propose is some middle ground, where anyone can do what they want so long as they do not harm others: that is reasonable - but it is unreasonable to expect harmless others to observe your rules and regulations, values and temperament, or indeed be good candidates for assimilation.

Boaz_David,
Thank you! I know how to differentiate between ideals and practical duties.

Davo,
the kind of birds I had in mind are of the Jonathan Livingston Seagull type (by Richard Bach, http://www.szepi.hu/irodalom/jonathan/jonatan2.html ) - not the economic-minded "Breakfast Flock".

I thought for one brief moment that Rainer was undergoing a metmorphisis of attitudinal enlightenment,but thankfully he lived up my expectations of hiding behind his racial comfort blanket, by judging present Australians in the light of past violations.

Now correct me if I'm wrong Rainer.Aborigines had no concept of the Australian continent.They drew no maps or had a singular unifying language or had a single offical Govt that recognoised the continent of Terra Australis.They were involved in their own territorial wars murdering each other as were the Anglos.These were harsh times and Anglos treated their own almost as badly as the Aborigines.If a single Aboriginal Tribe had murdered other tribes and taken over Australia,then morally ,would this have been have been alright since they had the right skin colour?

I think Rainer that you and many others use their Aboriginality as a lever for advantage.

Dear “Redneck”,

Having just read your response to Tiziana Torresi’s article I suggest you re-read it and then re-consider your own response. Re-read it because she does not suggest that “world poverty can be simply solved through immigration”; but in fact quite the opposite.

Then re-consider your own use of the term “hyphenated Australians”. Creative as it may be I can’t imagine who would not qualify as a hyphenated Australian. Both Catholic and Protestant groups in particular are typically between second and fifth generation Italian, British, Greek Australians, etc. Not a great variation unless you compare it to Aboriginal Australians who themselves also migrated here at one point. Please explain then what you mean by this term.

In your wild speculation that Ms Torresi is both Catholic, and an immigrant to Australia, you seem to be suggesting that on arrival she should suddenly forgo any right to make constructive criticisms towards it. There are positives and negatives in any country and culture, and perhaps those best qualified to criticize are the ones who have lived within an alternative system. Making constructive criticisms does not imply a lack of empathy or appreciation towards Australia, so long as they are balanced and well thought through, which incidentally I would have said her article was.
And anyway, she does not mention Australia anywhere in the article, which could apply to any rich country.

In your comment that White North Europeans have led the world in scientific and social achievement over the past 200 years, you might want to extend your thinking to both modern and ancient history. Modern because recent immigration to Australia from Asia and Southern Europe has done a lot to develop the country. Ancient because Ancient Greece and Rome, and Renaissance Italy have had more influence on Western Civilization as it stands today than have Northern Europeans over the past 200 years.

Let me identify myself as fifth generation Irish (non-Catholic) Australian, so you can stick to the issues and don’t have to get lost in trying to guess where I might be from,

Schmuck

Dear “Schmuck”

I suggest that you read Ms Torresi’s article again because you are wrong. The article is a pro immigration, pro multiculturalism article and is even entitled “Opening Australia’s Borders.” Ms Torresi’s plainly states that any arguments that she uses against using immigration to solve world poverty are invalid if the rich countries do not do their utmost to solve world poverty. At no point does she point out how some countries have done just that by themselves while the people of two groups of cultures. Africaan and Muslim, are unable to stand upon their own feet despite trillions in aid.

My use of the term “hyphenated Australians is used to display how the term “Australian” has now become meaningless when indicating national identity. Despite what the fairy land idealists wish was true, all humans prefer to live among people who they consider are their own kith and kin, who have their own cultural values, their own sense of right and wrong behaviour, and with whom they feel safe. In a culturally divided society, ethnicity becomes more important for social identity, not less important.

It is hardly “wild speculation” that Ms Toressi is a Catholic. Any person with an Italian name could reasonable be considered Catholic. And I do object to people who flee their own stuffed up societies coming to my country and telling Australians everything that we are doing wrong. Overpopulation is one primary reason for world poverty and perhaps Ms Torresi could take up that matter with her own Pope instead of wagging her finger at successful Protestant societies.

You comment that Asian and Southern European immigration “has done a lot to develop the country” is hardly an valid opinion. Australians never needed these people in the first place, we were doing a pretty good job developing the country before all the Johnny Come Lately’s barged in and built upon what Australians had already created.

So you are “Irish Australian” are you? I am simply “Australian” and I have never thought of myself in any other way.

Hello Schmuck, wonderful post. Judging from redneck's response you scored some points - not that he would admit it.

For ole redneck to take your erudite comments seriously would mean admitting he is wrong and as we all know redneck is never wrong; he is perfection itself, wise beyond redemption, altruistic to a T, tolerant beyond compare. We lesser mortals should simply pack up our bags and move out of Australia rather than sully this wide brown land with our unsightly imperfections. (Do you think that Redneck would be lonely?)

;-)