Lyndon Storey asks why do people deserve fewer rights than us just because of where they were born ?

Perhaps it is a also a question of responsibility.

I wonder if Lyndon Storey would agree that the people of any particular country have a responsibility to improve the social, economic and political conditions in their country, or does Lyndon Storey think that they should just be given carte blanche to move to countries where people have chosen improvement over stagnation and have invested great time and effort to achieve improvement.

At the end of the Korean War South Korea was a ravaged country, but today it is a modern and thriving country (even exporting high tech products) thanks to the energy and ambition and focus of its people. So Lyndon Storey, why cannot the people of dysfunctional African or Middle Eastern nations choose the same course, or does Lyndon Storey perhaps think that they are incapable of doing so, and therefore the only option is for them to relocate to affluent western democracies.

More trite insults from those who have the gall to call this article stupid. Here's one gem:

"And DavidJS, apparently your concept of 'ownership' falls short of electoral registers, citizenship laws and local taxes that would apply beyond private property."

None of which entitles me or anyone else to decide who can enter this country or how many. No such set of rights exist in common law, in the constitution or anywhere else. Only in the minds of those under the illusion they understand the legal system in Australia.

Moreover, in some countries people are NOT entitled to travel whereever they wish inside the country despite what some here may think. Fortunately Australia is not in that category (apart from restrictions on travel within defence force property or similar) but it may be considered if Australian cities are deemed too overcrowded.

National entities such as Australia are no longer the isolated enclaves they used to be and given the way capitalism is developing, will become less so. Regardless of whether Rudd or Abbott is Prime Minister, immigration rates will too high because that's the way our economic and political system works. And I for one would rather the social burdens of immigration levels today compared with the glorious times of 1900 when such levels were greatly restricted.

So, the premise that the public have no right to restrict access to their property to those outside the broader national/local public ownership list in the same way an individual has to restrict access to their own private property is based solely that as of present, there is an absence of a law specifically referring to the citizen and their rights to exclusively withhold their public property from an outside body via input in immigration policy and access to purchasing property, am I correct?

And I'm no lawyer, but I'm pretty sure the government DOES reserve the right to process, approve or deny visa- essentially on our behalf- as they and most other Western governments have been practicing.

Wonderful idea. Let's allow all comers to enter Australia and within ten years we will be indistinguishable from the Middle East, India or Africa. In case the author hasn't noticed (or lives in a cave in some remote region of the country), people bring their culture, values and customs with them.

So let's import more of the values and customs that have wrecked the places I mentioned. Let's unselfishly import millions of the people who live by those values and customs and we can kiss our country goodbye.

But never mind, we can always emigrate to the Middle East, India or Africa, I'm sure we would be welcomed with open arms.

Wouldn't we?

I remember when I was younger and studying anthropology that members of many so called primitive cultures referred to themselves as "humans", and considered members of other cultures just non-human, which allowed them to make war on them, take their possessions and women, etc. Non Australian may be foreigners, but only if you think in a particular, narrow sense. We all live in the same world and we all have some basic rights, and I think we are well beyond the notion that we don’t have interest or right to intervene where they are not respected. Lyndon is not proposing abolishing all borders so that total chaos and confusion can follow. He advocates advancing towards a world where the primacy is put on the fact of being humans and not on the particular national, ethnic, religious, etc. group to which we may also belong. We face global challenges that affect all of us and that can be only solved by global governance (climate change is but one of them). Whether because we feel we all are humans (how can we feel otherwise?) or by self interest, we would be wise to pursue the development of a Human Union. It will not come all of a sudden, someone has to take the first step.

I suppose no one will find surprising that I disagree with the notion that EU has the most corrupt and bloated bureaucracy in history, but I think most of its bureaucracy stems from the fact that it is still a Union of States and not a United States of Europe.

The problem jllortega with federalising more countries (in a democratic state, that is) is that eventually you come to a point where some regional communities have such different values the wishes of the other community actually start to be compromised with things they outright don't want purely to appease the new members.

The EU is a perfect example. MOST of the various countries so far inside were enthusiastic about expanding to one another, as they each felt that their own countries alone didn't offer as much as they wanted (travel, trade-wise), and the feeling was quite mutual all around. Nowadays there is almost zero enthusiasm for expanding further because the remaining candidate countries (and some already allowed in) are mostly much poorer, some culturally alien places to which the people in the original union would feel would just burden them and offer nothing they actually want in return.

Considering the contrast in attitudes amongst various states and peoples, you would have a clear clash between the values of secular states and theocratic (including shariah) states- with zero little actual independence and (comfortable) isolation from the other- be it from international lobbying or individuals having unrestricted rights to travel and lobby locally in a place that might not have actually granted them entry if it had the choice. Also there would be a hugely disproportionate pressure on developed countries to carry the world's population financially and even physically. Also take the recent UN movement outlawing defamation of religion- the secular states (basically the entire west and most first-world countries) got outvoted!

This is why nations with borders and little political sovereignty over the others is such a good thing- especially focused geographically so each can handle their own actual climate properly.

Also, I should point out that Switzerland and Sweden- the most independent nations in the world- are among the VERY top (1st and 2nd) for most environmentally-friendly nations in the world- it comes down to the fact that the people there actually get a say in environmental practices- Australian and American citizens get overruled.