Baldrick,

Lidia Thorpe is a gangreen far-left whinge activist that is not even vaguely representative of the country's leaders. The gangreens also included Jonathan Doig who raped many children.

mhaze

<<But primarily both sides favour immigration. The Libs see new workers and customers for business. And the ALP see new left wing voters. So there is a conspiracy among the majors to keep it going, irrespective of what the population wants.>>

I don't totally agree there re left wing voters, but agree with the overall sentiment. The libs do see new workers and voters and for labor new voters across the board. Anyone you can get to vote for you has to be a bonus.

ttbn,

<<Were you not here when Abbott 'stopped the boats'? Even Labor eventually got the message on stopping illegals. Our border control is the envy of the UK and Europe. And we have the advantage of being an island.>>

We have people still trying to come to Australia by boat, it's just that governments in Australia don't want the media to know and so you don't find out. These boats are being returned to their place of origin and it is happening, including now. For those directly affected I'm sure it's not a nice experience, they'd rather get away from a horrid place they've been living in and live in Australia. I don't blame them.

This is my point to Yuyutsu, I don't know bad the violence is there with turning back the boats, but it's already happening. I'm not supportive and believe we should take in more humanitarian entrants, but we can't keep taking people from generally financially well off countries forever. If there is any violence with these people, try and keep that to a minimum or avoid all together.

When we come to our last drop of water here, there is no suitable land left to grow food anymore as it's all covered in housing, our roads are jammed with cars and traffic due to so many living here and our air quality is terrible it will all be too late. It is important to be raising concerns now and want a debate on how to implement change for the betterment of future generations.

Dear Nathan,

«but we can't keep taking people from generally financially well off countries forever.»

Nobody was suggesting that we need to "take" them, or support them financially or in any other way.

Leaving them alone and not physically/violently preventing them from arriving does not amount to taking them.

You may like to think of these people as animals: suppose a wild animal somehow manages to reach Australian shores, and assuming it does not carry disease or poses a danger to humans or livestock, it should not be stopped. That does not mean that it will be taken, not by the state anyway though some individual Australian may decide to take it as a pet or as farm-stock.

Why should humans be treated worse than animals?

You don't need to grant them them residence, citizenship, healthcare or any other rights above the existing laws against cruelty to animals. If someone adopts them as pets, for example, then they will be required to house and feed them properly, make sure they do not disturb the neighbours, and would not be allowed to beat or torture them, or to kill them in a painful manner.

I think that treating those who arrive without a permit like animals, no better but no worse either, should reduce the number of arrivals significantly without needing to be cruel or violent.

I don't think any human being should be treated like an animal.
I think they should be treated with respect decency and dignity.
(Treat others the way you'd like to be treated)

Also I think the existing population have a right to decide what sort of people they wish to share their country with,
i.e. who they deem worthy of Australian citizenship;
- And how many should be allowed to do so in a given period.

This is our country, foreigners don't have any rights to decide anything.
They can come, spend their money and then go home.
If they like the place and want to call it home, then they will respect what the existing citizens think if they wish to become one.
If not, then they're not worthy of this country, and they need not apply.

The world is not some halfway house, and freedom isn't free.
Nor are the benefits that we bestow upon our citizenry.

Dear Critic,

«I don't think any human being should be treated like an animal.»

Neither do I, but my point was that human beings should be treated AT LEAST like an animal.

«I think the existing population have a right to decide what sort of people they wish to share their country with»

Speaking of "THEIR", no country belong to any group of people.

The concept of "ownership" is artificial and holds only within a given society: if you aren't part of a society, how more so if you aren't even human, then that term is nonsensical.

Your house may be registered in your name on some computer in the city, but simultaneously, most of it could be your cat's territory except the front yard which "belongs" to the neighbour's cat; birds again have their own boundaries and ants ignore all fences, even the boundaries of your cat and birds...

Every human is also an animal, thus if a society of humans is unwilling to accept them socially as members under their human capacity, then fair enough, but they should still be able to physically arrive under their animal capacity (which doesn't grant them citizenship or any similar privileges).

«This is our country,»

You seem to confuse "country" as a human society with "country" as a geographical piece of land.

«foreigners don't have any rights to decide anything.
They can come, spend their money and then go home.»

But they do have rights, even if they're not exactly the same:
When a visitor comes on a visa, they make a contract with the human society they visit. That contract may not grant them welfare or voting rights, but it does grant them police protection and if cheated or physically beaten they can appeal to the courts of the land. Animals don't get that!

«The world is not some halfway house, and freedom isn't free.
Nor are the benefits that we bestow upon our citizenry.»

Indeed, and those who arrive under their animal capacity should not expect these benefits, not even have land-ownership registered in their name and respected by courts.

Hi Yuyutsu,
I think I'm going to have to agree to disagree.

My first thought is how would this system work in Israel?
Is everyone just going to drop their weapons, animosity and past grievances, group hug and make up?
- I think it's unrealistic, more of a feel-good 'in a perfect world' type of thinking that probably cannot and will not ever exist in the real world.

I think in order for your idea of things to actually work, all the people would have to agree to support that ideology, including the United States of America, who thinks it has a right to dictate to other nations.

I'm not sure ownership is the correct word, but I'm also not convinced it isn't, another word could be 'authority'. This may also be connected with the idea of democracy - that the people decide what is best for their society.

If you are to argue that the people aren't the owners of their country, or do not have authority over it, or the future direction of their society, then who does?

Saying we are not the owners, is like abandoning ones post, because in the real world doing so will leave a vacuum that someone else will step into and then they will act as the owner or the authority, and the people will have no say.

An individual can choose not to be an active part of society, but they still enjoy the benefits of that society.

Tell me, do you get food from a supermarket, do you travel on roads to get medical assistance, do you like hot showers and if so, do you get it from a tap, or do you boil water you collected from the river, and if you do collect water from the river was the container used one that you obtained from a store or one you made your self?