Is the parrot referring to the 20,000 people who enter Australia annually, and then overstay their visa. This number represents a very small fraction of the annual non-permanent arrivals, the Department of Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs puts that number at 0.2% of the total foreign arrivals. Overstaying by 'short term' visa holders is not new, and certainly doesn't represent a sudden invasion of "New Boat People" as the alarmist parrot wants others to believe. The majority of the 20,000 overstayers are short term, and voluntarily leave the country. Overall it is estimated there are about 60,000 people in Australia illegally at any one time. These figures have remained fairly consistent since data was first gathered about 20 years ago, and certainly gives the lie to the inference by the parrot that the Albanese Government is making it easier for illegal people to stay in Australia.

"Who ever gave you an authority to conduct a selection as to who may or may not enter this continent?"

A bigger question here may surround the idea that ttbn has no right to hold a preference over who comes into the country.

I say he has every right to hold a preference over who he wants to share his country with.
I think its a part of democracy, 'We the people' and all that.

Our right to preferences on all topics and issues culminate in our vote, and preference certain candidates over others.

To say ttbn doesn't have a right to that opinion is the greater evil, - for if he does not have the right to voice an opinion on that issue, then that means he has to potentially self censor, which is the equivalent of not being permitted to holding an opinion or preference at all.

To say ttbn cant hold an opinion or preference, looks by default to be 'people who identify as immigrants' trying to silence 'people who identify as Australians'.

Am I wrong?

AC

Thanks for that.

I'm never quite sure what Yuyutsu means: he often seems confused.

In this case I was concerned about the numbers, mainly. But, yes, I believe that all Australians have to right to an opinion on who comes here, as well as how many of them, even though our political class ignores us.

I would prefer a homogeneous society for Australia, even though that gets you called a racist these days, never to your face of course. But, who cares? Not I.

There is NOT strength in diversity; the opposite is true. That's not to disparage people of other races and cultures; it's just that all people are more comfortable with their own kind, evidence by the growing physical and psychological ghettos in Australia. And the Voice.

"I would prefer a homogeneous society for Australia"

Be truthful ttbn, don't be coy, what you mean is you would prefer an Australian society made up of old conservative male Anglo whites, just like yourself. As your Lovely Pauline would say; "PLEASE EXPLAIN?"

Just when you think one forum bigot can't be topped, another chimes in with something even more outrages.

Hi ttbn,
You're welcome, however I wasn't defending you anymore than standing against the idea implied by Yuyutsu that you have no inherent right to an opinion that includes a preference on who comes here and how many.

It may not be a law, but I believe that if your parents lived here and you were born here, you have every right to an opinion on who comes here and how many, -the same as anyone else born here.
- Thinking about it, I actually find it ridiculous and somewhat offensive for anyone to think or suggest otherwise
(But I'm not having a go at you Yuyutsu)
- and you're free to discern based on race, religion or any other factor you use in your own decision-making whether politically-correct or not.

I oppose this idea that you're not permitted to have on opinion on things that impact you, because multicultural Australian ideology assumes you must love immigrants and foreigners and any bad word said even just opposing more arrivals must have a racist basis and therefore not to be spoken of.
I oppose this idea that you're not allowed to have an opinion or preference or like or dislike whomever you choose.
- That this issue or question of 'who and how many and preference' must be redacted from your mind, because you are not permitted to think like that.

Many of these global ideologies seek to silence dissent by labelling a person something-ist,
- 'racist' 'sexist', mysogynist' etc, and all the other words, 'homophobic' 'climate denier' 'bigot'
- They all seek to label a person as 'bad', either for their opinion, or for even just having an opinion.

I don't believe people should be unfairly shamed into silence on issues that affect them.
I don't care if people get offended by things they find uncomfortable.

I think if an issue holds merit you've every right to say it if you choose.
And even if an argument is stupid and doesn't hold merit, there's certainly no law against that either.
(or shortage of examples, especially from those who lead).

'Cultural clashing' is a good description of Australia's immigration lunacy.