The uniparty never goes to the polls with an immigration or population policy. Only One Nation wants to talk about something that the majority of Australians are worried about.

Google ‘one nation policy on immigration’, and it is all spelt out.

Google the same for the uniparty, and you'll find nothing definite.

If you don't want to look, One Nation proposes:-

. Deportation of 75,000 illegals - visa overstayers, illegal workers, all unlawful non-residents
. Cut immigration to 130,000
. End skilled visa sorting
. End student visa loopholes - back-door to work and permanent residence
. Stop the Administrative Review Tribunal
. Reintroduce Temporary Protection Visas
. Deport visa holding criminals
. 8 year waiting period for citizenship and welfare
. No entry to people from countries with values incompatible with our own
. Withdraw from the UN Refugee Convention.

Not part of the above policy, but a slogan that attracted my attention a few days ago: immigration should be ‘low and slow’.

Can't argue with that.

The One Nation party is no different to the uniparty:
They are all the same, they all believe in playing God, that some humans (i.e. themselves) seemingly have some divine privilege to decide who may and who may not be "allowed" to live in one of God's continents.

Yes, "Low and Slow" would be nice and comfy, certainly nicer than the uniparty's policies - so what? my comfort must not override other people's freedom!

I have met quite a few people who live here but don't want to take on Australian Citizenship. I think they should be given an ultimatum of ten years or pack up & go. Having said that these people will need to be given the chance to earn enough to do so.
I also know quite a few pensioners mainly men of course who opt to live out their life on the pension in a couple of Asian countries where the Australian pension appears to offer them a very good lifestyle. In my opinion it'd be wiser if they could live here & spend the money in our economy instead of dragging literally millions away from here. Again, to offer blue collar pensioners incentive is not a Government priority. I really would like to understand how some of the bureaudroids think ! There seems to be so much money floating around but it doesn't get utilised to make it stay in Australia. There's more money spend away from Australia by Australians than here where it would help the most. Bringing in more immigrants who don't spent their money here is nothing short of witless !

There are 713,000 foreign students - and people pretending to be students - in Australia.

1 person in 37, compared with 1 in 333 in the US.

These ‘money-making-for-universities imports actually sent $13 billion - earned in Australia- back to where they came from in 2023-24. They are here to work, many of them never going near a place of learning. They are here to work.

Not that they would learn a lot at our universities, which are not all that good. They produced better results before foreign students were a thing

Can't argue with that either.

There was an article in the Australian yesterday about the imminent
collapse of the Australian building industry.
There have been reports of thousands of small subbies going broke so I
presume it is moving up the industry.
Look at that then think about the 100,000s of migrants a year !

Dear Indyvidual,

«I have met quite a few people who live here but don't want to take on Australian Citizenship.»

Is it they really don't want, or that they are too honest to make a false oath, claiming to believe in and uphold some mediocre values which no intelligent person can agree with?

«I think they should be given an ultimatum of ten years or pack up & go.»

So you prefer just the spineless frauds to stay, those willing to lie under oath just so they can stay together with their Australian families, just so their Australian-born children are not sent to orphanages (well, you know what happens to them there... and what useful citizens they would become as a result).

The honest ones are probably also those who not only support themselves but are also creative, innovative and bring business into Australia, employing Australians and paying their pensions through their taxes. The ones to sheepishly obey your ultimatum are indeed also those dull and unprincipled people who are happy to grab benefits and pensions from the Australian tax-payer.

«I also know quite a few pensioners mainly men of course who opt to live out their life on the pension in a couple of Asian countries where the Australian pension appears to offer them a very good lifestyle.»

With very few exceptions, one must be an Australian resident in order to receive any Australian pension.

The people you speak of, must be living on their superannuation, which is their own money. By living in much cheaper countries, including far cheaper aged-care, they also save the Australian tax-payer from having to pay their age-pension, not to speak of Australian nursing-home beds.

Australian universities’ reliance on foreign students has always been a ‘ponzi scheme’.

In connivance with the federal uniparty, they established a structure to attract huge volumes of full-fee-paying overseas students by arranging for the world's most generous visas, working rights and opportunities for permanent residence.

Plus, lowering of academic standards to cater for students who can barely speak English. Australian students are expected to help the foreigners in group studies arrangements.

Australian universities are the biggest bludgers on foreign students in the world.

Foreign student enrolments reached a record last year - in keeping with Albanese massive increase in all immigration!

Generally I'm fine with the uniparty description of Australian politics being that the difference between the two majors is minor and that's why they end up arguing about optics, personality etc.

But with immigration, even though they each up with roughly the same policy, they come to the same conclusion for different reasons.

The ALP sees new immigrants as new voters and thus wants more of them. Its an indication of how far the ALP has moved away from being a party of the workers because in the past worker's parties opposed immigration seeing them as competition that depressed wages.

The Libs, on behalf of business, see them as consumers. A bigger population means a bigger consumer base.

So they both want more immigrants but for very different reasons. Either way, its the current resident workers who get screwed over - not that either party cares.

The same thing applied to the US...until Trump came along.

Dear Mhaze,

Very interesting analysis, so here is an idea, Trump-style, that could satisfy both parties without burdening the housing market or hurting ordinary Australians in any other way:

Auction Australian voting rights overseas!

“... come the federal election, (voters) are tasked with walking into a discount store and holding up two t-shirts, one at $2.99 and one at $2.98, and trying to decide which one is better quality when they know in their hearts they are made in the same factory and the price discrepancy is probably a typo". (Flat White, Spectator Australia)

too honest to make a false oath,
Yuyutsu,
That is far fetched in the extreme ! Whilst on the subject, I have never believed there to be any merit in dual Citizenship ! I was told by the then husband of a refuse-to-become-Australian women from an Asian Country that she sends literally tens of thousands of Australian Dollars to her country of birth.

Indyvidual

Many immigrants, citizens or not, send money to help the family at home. I think there is a limit to the amounts that can be sent out of the country, and at least we don't have the rest of the family here. I suppose, like anyone else, they can dispose of their money how they please, and tax is the only thing due to the government.

Dear Indyvidual,

«too honest to make a false oath,
Yuyutsu,
That is far fetched in the extreme !»

Well tell me, why else would one refuse getting an extra citizenship with all the benefits that come with it?

«I have never believed there to be any merit in dual Citizenship !»

Right - I have dual citizenship and I don't believe in the merit of even one!

Dual citizenship just helps one to travel and see their family overseas without hassles, but that is only to mitigate the unfair requirement to have a citizenship to begin with.

Anyway, there are many other things I cannot see merit in, for example, as a vegetarian I see no merit in others eating meat, but then it is not my place to allow others to live their life as they see fit only if I can see a merit in what they do.

«I was told by the then husband of a refuse-to-become-Australian women from an Asian Country that she sends literally tens of thousands of Australian Dollars to her country of birth.»

His money or hers?
Pre-tax or after tax?
Did she send it to "her country of birth" as such, or to her relatives who just happened to live there?

Anyway, the last thing I need is to take sides in the family-dispute of a divorced couple...

---

Dear Ttbn,

"There is no limit to the amount of money that you can travel with, receive and send overseas. You also don't need to declare money that you transfer overseas or receive from overseas through a bank or a remittance service provider (money transfer business)."

- http://www.austrac.gov.au/individuals/moving-money-across-international-borders

Indyvidual

The money might be going to elderly parents. To get a visa for parents, immigrants must take on the responsibility of all costs the parents might incur, including health etc.

As I was told recently by a woman whose mother is still living in India because the family could not afford to support her in Australia, whereas they could afford to help her in India where the Australian dollar goes much further.

The money might be going to elderly parents
ttbn,
Yes, it might !

If Dutton really wants to win, (not a great job trying to repair what Albanese has done) he should be standing up for free speech (he isn't), promising to end mass migration (he hasn't ‘promised’ to do nearly enough), protecting biological sex rights in law, ending the enormous waste of Net Zero (he says he will not), and reasserting Australian sovereignty by exiting the WHO.

Immigration without benefit to the Nation is plain stupid !

Dear Indyvidual,

«Immigration without benefit to the Nation is plain stupid !»

Perhaps so, but it is not your place to stop it.
Just imagine how you would feel if others restrained you every time you tried to do something stupid...

You are at liberty not to grant "non-beneficial" immigrants citizenship, protections, health-care or welfare, that is perfectly fine.
Yet you are not at liberty to physically stop them or kick them out: this land is God's, not yours!

this land is God's, not yours!
Yuyutsu,
People everywhere throughout history have objected & killed to prevent others from setting foot on the land they have occupied since whenever they established themselves there. Much land was occupied by people who happen to be the first to make a clearing where they could live. In many other places people living in a place were either driven out or offered to integrate to exist as part of a community.
People have always found that symbiosis offers a much better existence than parasitism. Some simply can't get themselves to do that & that's when the problems start festering !

Dear Indyvidual,

Yes, history is full of people who behaved like animals.

Lions often kill the cubs of their new lioness whose territory they took over.

I believe that man ought to do better than to blindly surrender to their selfish genes.

Symbiosis? Why not, but it needs to be voluntary.
Parasitism? Unless you are a saint, it is acceptable to kill parasites that attack you, but not to forcibly try to convert them.

Donald Trump has had some influence on the wokies if not the thick-headed politicians.

The Australian Stock Exchange has abandoned a proposal that would have forced listed companies to report on the diversity of its boards: including sexual preferences and other personal matters.

What idiot suggested such a thing for an organisation like the ASX in the first place!

The same idiot/s who already have exchange members reporting on the number of males and females on their boards, I suppose.

If it hadn't been for Trump, these highly objectionable requirements would have got through. But, four of the leading groups involved with the ASX found the courage to tell them NO. The ASX dropped the idea without a fight.

I wonder if there is enough time before the election for some of this common sense to filter down to the thickos in Canberra.

Burke is frantically throwing citizenship parties to get more people to vote for him. What a sordid creature he is, cheapening Australian citizenship for his own benefit. More than half the people in his electorate were born overseas; and he is packing the sh.ts because he is not good enough to hold the seat through hard work and honesty. 25% of them are Muslims, and less than half of them are in the workforce.

Multiculturalism, Islam and anti-Semitism will do Labor in this time, if there is any justice left.

A desperate Albanese has again gone berserk with our money, blowing truckloads on Medicare. His partner in the uniparty has said “me too”. In fact, Dutton wants to beat Albanese's $8.5 billion with an even $9 billion.

90% of visits to the doctor will be paid for by the taxpayers.

Both members of the small target uniparty are trying to bribe voters, instead of reducing spending, reducing the public sector, and doing something useful. They are just chasing each other in circles like two dogs having fun in the backyard.

Having the excellent health services that Australia
has is a big reason that attracts people to this
country. And why those in this country keep voting
for parties that don't make cuts to these services.

That's the reality. Also we have an aging population.
Health services are vital.

Dear Foxy,

«Having the excellent health services that Australia has is a big reason that attracts people to this country»

Well if the government's new plan for bulk-billing goes ahead then I may no longer be allowed to see my GP!

You see, according to this plan doctors will receive extra if they bulk-bill ALL their patients,
but because I don't use Medicare and pay cash instead,
accepting me as patient could spoil my doctor's status so he might refuse to see me.

And even if he agreed to see me, then since Medicare will be paying him $84 per visit,
then I will be required to pay him at the least the same (currently I pay $65 per visit).

Great country, isn't it...

Yuyutsu,

My husband was rushed to a public hospital last night.
He had to have emergency surgery for a
problematic hernia. He's going to be in hospital for
a week.

After that we're both going to go into "respite" and rehab care
under assessment - "My Aged Care" for which the government pays.

No complaints from us.

I forgot to add that we've always had private health
cover - and paid our wy, including for ambulance
membership. We've also in the past have handed our
private health cover to public hospitals to help as
much as we can. And we've never been disappointed in
the services we received. We believe that if we can -
we should support the excellent health services and
their staff - in this country.

Dear Foxy,

I won't argue about the quality of Australian health services in themselves, which fortunately I don't know much about, yet what use are excellent health services if they are only available to those who are willing to use Medicare?
Should the government's plan become law, it seems that I will be barred from seeing my excellent GP.

Yes, I also had a private health insurance - until I discovered that I can only pay my premiums but could never enjoy its benefits if, God forbid, I needed to.

Why is that?
Because even though the health insurance was supposed to be "private", government/Medicare partly participates in all medical claims whether I like it or not. After exchanging some letters with the legal department of my private-health provider and my local MP, I found that there is no way I could avoid and forfeit this co-payment, which the "private-health" insurers are legally obliged to provide.

I therefore abandoned my PHI and instead took up an international/overseas health insurance which is not bound by Australian law (and is quite more expensive, though this is compensated for by my very high excess, way higher than what is allowed in Australia).

Now besides praising the Australian health system and how you and others seem to benefit from it, can you please address my concern directly and tell me whether you consider it fair to ban me from seeing my Australian GP when I am unwell?

Medical personnel & facilities are really good in Australia but they face the same problems many patients encounter, the administrative side !
As most Government Departments, Health too is burdened by top-heavy bureaucracy unwilling to cast off the yoke that is the Peter Principle !

The UK Labour Government, unlike the one here that can't even spell properly, has cut international aid, and put the savings into defence. Some believe that they have “realised there is no future in hand-wringing, virtue-signalling, liberal-leftism”, while it is business as usual for the ALP: smear campaigns, bribery and “promising” to do things that they could have done over the last three years. Beer will be 18 cents per keg cheaper! But, boozers won't forget that Albanese has twice raised the excise on grog during his hopeless incumbency.

Oh, and the rush by Bourke to hand out citizenship certificates, calling it catchup; something they could also have done over the past three years.

And the rearranging of the management of the Reserve Bank to ensure a reduction in the official interest rate when the Bank’s comment seemed to suggest this was not justified.

Even changing foreign policy and doing nothing about Anti-Semitism to gain the votes of their multicultural mates, who will shaft them when there are enough of them in the country.

Of the 1.1 million jobs Labor boasts it has created, 7 out of 10 are paid for by the government, either directly or indirectly, worsening the imbalance between those employed to create wealth and those who merely spend it.

The head of America’s ‘Department of Government Efficiency’ (Doge) has written to all federal workers in the US asking them to explain in a brief email what they did last week.

Just imagine that happening in Slackstralia, under either of the two bozos jostling for the job of PM.

At the end of the PLA's circumnavigation of Australia, will theirships dock in the Port of Darwin? They own it. Or more correctly, they have a lot of their 99 year lease left.

Not an issue for most voters (what is?) at the coming election, the NT Country Liberal Party flogged the port off to the Communists because they were short of money, and they were “reluctant” to borrow money to put into it.

The then PM Malcolm Turnbull shrugged off the stupidity of the deal, despite strong protests from US President Obama. It was the “right thing to do” according to Turnbull.

There is a discussion about reclaiming the Port of Darwin going on in the background; but nothing said about it in their pre-election BS from either Dutton or Albanese.

Neither of the members of the uniparty can be taken seriously in this election.

ttbn,
Imagine the Unions getting into overdrive in defending the Peter Principle & googling for answers how to provide answers ?
Yes, unemployables too are part of society but they've now become a vote-affecting sub-class that have inadvertently proven that many of them are not actually all that unemployable.
Also, sending Australian money overseas for nothing in return should attract a Tax. Yes many people support relatives in their old countries & that is fine however, it should not be at the expense of needy people here. Everyone needs help sometimes but one can't keep on helping without working towards ending the need for help ! Welfare recipients buy goods & pay taxes on everything to keep the economy turning over. Money sent overseas does not !
Australia desperately needs a DOGE !

Nataliya Ilyushina, writing in Spectator Australia, believes that Labor's “citizenship blitz” is a master-class in “misreading” migrants, and demonstrates their disconnection from them.

. Labor has no clue about the migrant electorate, which still has to enrol to vote like everyone else; like everyone else, some will not bother, and the AEC is to incompetent and lazy to track them down. Voting can be enforced only when people are on the roll.

. Ilyushina writes that new citizens will be warned by already naturalised migrants to “avoid enrolment at all costs”.

. Migrants, like anyone else, could be insulted by being expected to trust people who just show up once at a citizenship ceremony.

. The first thing many migrants hear about is not the value of democracy, but the rumours of hefty fines for failing to vote.

Ilyushina has been an Australian citizen for only 10 years, and looks at things from the migrant perspective, not from Tony Bourke's self-serving ideas, which are a “complete farce”.

Immigrants are not embedded in the Australian political system, and it takes years - a lot longer than the four needed prior to citizenship - to work it out.

. Even with good English, it is hard to work out the system.
. Most migrants speak their birth language at home, and take their news from the old country's news in their language.
. Four years is not long enough to adjust, or to distinguish between the political parties.
. The preferential voting system is a nightmare (to non-migrants as well).

The author's final word on the citizenship blitz - “a terrible misjudgment and an astonishing disconnect with the migrant electorate”.

Indyvidual

A country that has driven out its industry to other countries, and has become reliant on imports of goods and people to tax, is unlikely to care about people in Australia sending what they have left after taxes back to their countries of birth. We have to accept that Australia is rooted, and that too many of the people, voting only because they are forced to, don't seem to care.

A country that has driven out its industry to other countries,
ttbn,
Let's just say it wasn't "the Country" as such. It was power-crazed, economic illiterate Unions who did that by exploiting feeble-minded yet money lusting fee paying members. Many still can't see that to this day & most likely never will.

Dear Ttbn,

As a migrant I can confirm that Nataliya Ilyushina is absolutely correct.

I wish I was also advised at the time to “avoid enrolment at all costs”.

Preferential voting is indeed demanding, but is one democratic island in an otherwise undemocratic electoral system. In order to prevent both the dilution of donkey-votes and forcing voters into moral dilemmas, it should not be compulsory to fill in all the numbers in all the boxes, yet this baby should not be thrown along with the bath-water.

Yuyutsu

No voting should be compulsory. The preferential system is a protection racket for the major parties. While people should vote for their own sakes, compulsory voting is simply undemocratic.

Australian politicians seem to think that all immigrants are the same. All Muslims are the same. All Jews are the same. How insulting! But, that is what identity politics is about.

It is Australian politicians who are all the same: incompetent, self-serving and totally useless; full of wind and slogans.

Last night , I heard Dutton recite the old slogan, ‘Australia is the best country in the world’.

Australia is not the best country in the world. There are no “best” countries. It's the population that counts; and Australia’s multicultural mess, and its political class keep it well down on the list.

I know nothing about Poland or if the Poles have been brainwashed into to thinking that their country is ‘the best in the world’, but, while we are seeing Australian taxpayer funded TV ads telling people it's OK to be queer, a court in Poland has found against IKEA for sacking an employee who criticised the company for sending staff an email saying that they had to be LGBTQ inclusive,

The court also found that IKEA was going against its own ‘rhetoric of inclusivity’ by firing someone due to his religious beliefs and differing worldview.

We don't get that sort of common sense and freedom from our unelected, activist judges in Australia. In fact, although Dutton tries to make out that Australia is the best country in the world, the government declared, idiotically, that his intention of getting public servants to actually pretend to be working in the offices provided for them - not at home in their pyjamas - was discriminating against women!

Also in the ‘best country in the world’ Albanese and Dutton are obsessed with suffocating speech on social media while actual criminals roam the streets, often in gangs, terrorising the general public. And both parties have been buddying-up on Net Zero and pouring our money into renewable energy projects that wouldn’t survive in a true free market.

On Bowen’s watch, household electricity prices have risen by approximately $1,000 and are likely to rise by another 50% or more in the relatively near future.

People should be thinking about these things, and a lot more about what is happening to Australia, in the lead up to the coming election.

People should be thinking,
ttbn,
The unions would challenge any Department that encourages that, particularly education !

Dear Ttbn,

«No voting should be compulsory. The preferential system is a protection racket for the major parties. While people should vote for their own sakes, compulsory voting is simply undemocratic.»

I agree 200%.

Now what I mentioned is, that short of that and besides that, at least one should be able to mark only as many boxes as they want on their ballot paper, leaving the rest of the boxes blank and still have their vote valid. This way one is not forced into the moral dilemma of effectively having to choose, support and vote in one of the evil major parties.

«It is Australian politicians who are all the same: incompetent, self-serving and totally useless; full of wind and slogans.»

Indeed, not only the Australian.

compulsory voting is simply undemocratic.
ttbn & Yuyutsu,
In that case, those non-voters would then be excluded from participating in the benefits of a voting society ? Sounds fair !

Dear Indyvidual,

There are those who are not interested in being represented.
There are those who do not want to put in the effort to study who is who in politics and what policies they propose.
At present, their compulsory and most often random vote dilutes the votes of those for whom representation really matters.

On the other hand, there are those for whom election results really matter because they determine the laws under which they will have to live, for whom it could even be a matter of life and death: without compulsory voting, their votes will be relatively more effective.

Anyone with no big issues that could be life-changing for them, who is happy-go-lucky and could live with either party, ought to voluntarily sacrifice their vote in favour of those for whom it really matters!

There are those who are not interested in being represented.
Yuyutsu,
Yes but they expect the rest of us to be interested in representing them when the wheels go wobbly !
As I keep stating , we need symbiosis not parasitism. What you believe the rights of Democracy to be includes the right to show responsibility !

Dear Indyvidual,

What I omitted in my previous post is that whether or not we are interested in being represented, the Australian electoral system prevents it, making representation a mere joke. Some still enjoy the illusion of being represented while others do not wish to waste their time on illusions.

Given that we are not actually represented, that our views and aspirations do not matter anyway (at the political level), what "responsibility" remains?

The uniparty politicians represent themselves and their party, not voters.

we are not actually represented, that our views and aspirations do not matter anyway
Yuyutsu,
Try to think just for a fleeting moment how 8 Billion people could have their individual concerns taken into consideration by those keeping the wheels rolling ?
Humans are fitted with a herd instinct & that instinct includes looking out for each other to a great extent or in other words a sense of responsibility !
Without this instinct & discipline some groups of humans would become extinct in a very short time. That is why societies & whole civilisations rise & fall but continue they do albeit in reduced numbers. When a new civilisation reaches its zenith its downfall is guaranteed ! And, so the cycle continues !

Dear Indyvidual,

What is the point in having and keeping alive 8 billion slaves?

Yuyutsu,
Could you exist from your own merit ? The term "Slave" is quite different in the biblical sense to the Slavery going on.
As slave was someone who worked for another to make a living. Slavery on the other other hand came about from people selling other people either because of desperation or the more common occurrence of plain greed.
Slavery is enabled by people running away from oppressors rather than fighting them. It's those runners who are the real invaders of other countries. Colonisers brought mostly benefits however, bad situations arise under the best of intentions !
Being asked to pull your weight is not oppression !

Dear Indyvidual,

Time and again I ask myself why you chose for yourself this particular nickname, "Indyvidual", while your views seem to be quite the opposite - collectivist.

«Being asked to pull your weight is not oppression !»

For sure it is not, but do ask politely and nicely, then respect a 'no' answer amicably should it come.

Demanding "Do as I tell you because the land is mine", is not on: the land is not yours, it is God's.

«Colonisers brought mostly benefits»

In that case, try to convince the people involved that it is mostly beneficial for them to cooperate. Assuming these people are not slaves, either they will agree or they will not, then their choice should be final.

Stepping back, I think that allowing them true representation could tilt the scales in the direction of acceptance.

«Could you exist from your own merit ?»

Why, both people and animals have existed on earth for over a billion years. Not entirely from their own merit, but by God's grace as well.

the land is not yours, it is God's.
Yuyutsu,
In that case, do you think all the benefits brought to these people should be disregarded & let the Chinese just move in ?

://cairnsnews.org/2024/10/05/lnp-labor-uni-party-will-be-forced-to-accept-a-new-sovereign-country-of-torres-strait-backed-by-china/?fbclid=IwY2xjawI5JWdleHRuA2FlbQIxMQABHTgVRZ6sBme1R8bx5AJIDnBCpdUmaE3u-qhEUwtukUA0U-2te5OOnDUlWw_aem_40lJ93tBK7EC-TIjUWFssQ

Dear Indyvidual,

Yours is an excellent question!

The answer, though, is not universal.

Here we have a question of ethics/morals and also a question of self-defence.
Sometimes they conflict, as in the example you presented:

1) The case for morality:

The land is not yours.
You did not create it, God did.
The aboriginal people who live there aren't your slaves and ought to freely exercise their self-determination.
Suppose some Chinese people want to come and live in that land near Cairns, perhaps because China is overpopulated, perhaps to escape the Chinese regime, then who are you to stop them, violently at that?
Some British fleet once landed here without asking for anyone's permission: anyone else should be free to do the same.

2) The case for self-defence:

The Chinese in question are not innocent migrants: their intent is to use that airport, which (unlike the land itself) you built, in order to attack you, to kill, rob, rape, torture, enslave, indoctrinate, bringing you pain and misery. You should therefore protect your keen.



How much weight should each of these two considerations be given, differs from one person to the other.

An animal is not expected to follow morals - when self-defence is required, an animal goes for 100% self-defence.
("self" here at times also includes their offspring and even their whole herd)

A saint on the other hand is not concerned with self-defence and goes for 100% morals.

Jesus (whether historical or mythical) was a saint: he could have easily saved himself from the cross, just a word to Pontius, but he didn't, he was 100% focused on transmitting his moral teachings.

Then there is the full spectrum in between, between the beast and the saint.
Where one places themselves on this spectrum is a very personal question.

When it comes to states, there's a problem: their population is spread all over this spectrum...

A state cannot survive without defending its base population.
A state doesn't deserve to survive if it implicates its saints and evolved citizens in violent self-defence.
Would you like to continue and analyse possible solutions?

Some British fleet once landed here without asking for anyone's permission: anyone else should be free to do the same.
Yuyutsu,
The land now known as Australia was dwelled on & frequented by people who had no concept of the size of the land nor was there any concept of the goings-on outside their season-dependent wanderings. They did not cultivate it no matter how much some Academics are trying to portray the situation of then which is now manipulated to be their bread & butter & even more to the point, their career money !
They made no more or less use of the land than the fauna they shared this land with. It was due to to the so-called invaders that these then dwellers of this land gradually became more & more enlightened.
Papuans & New Guineans had & still have a concept of cultivation & borders of land. Nowadays of course & all with the benefit of learning to grasp knowledge from the newcomers, the long-time occupants of this land Australia make claims they could never before make due to their limitations of knowledge. Even today, they complain bitterly about the European invaders however, we never hear of objections to all the other invaders other than Caucasian ! Nor will they commit themselves to disclose which group of the new invaders they actually prefer or object to coming here & stay here.
I don't like it but I can't help thinking they're still making more bad than wise decisions for their future ! On the other hand, they can't really do much worse than the descendants of the European invaders are doing nowadays ! If lack of wisdom can be likened to a clock, Australian society is at 11.58 pm.

Dear Indyvidual,

Enlightenment is spiritual in nature and comes as a result of one's progress along the spectrum between the beast and the saint, not as a result of studying geography and agriculture.

I am not claiming that the aboriginals were/are enlightened, but neither was/is the white race, nor also the Chinese race.

Yet God did not designate the land only for the enlightened ones:
had that been the case, then only a handful of people would be living on earth today.

The unenlightened black people arrived in Australia at some point in time, not asking for anyone's permission, then came the unenlightened white people, not asking for anyone's permission, now the question at hand is, why should it be any different if the unenlightened yellow people decided to come, why need they ask for anyone's permission?

Thus I responded along the lines of self-defence, being the only legitimate excuse to prevent the Chinese from moving in:

Had Chinese people came to settle in Australia amicably, only for their own needs and aspirations to have a better life here, then you would have no moral entitlement whatsoever to kick them out.

We strongly suspect, however, that the Chinese in question (in the Cairns case) are not that innocent, but are rather scheming to take over, then harm and enslave the existing people of Australia.

That being the case, plus the fact that we are not [yet] saints, gives rise to a legitimate forceful response to keep them out, even if that is against the wishes of the local aboriginals.

One day we will grow to be saints, then we will no longer contemplate such forceful measures, but for now we should just remember to use only the minimal force required to keep us relatively safe, denying others (including aboriginals and Chinese) their freedom only as much as absolutely necessary to protect our own freedom.

Yuyutsu,
Being philosophical is akin to walking around with pink blinkers. Being philosophical has yet to produce a tangible result for the societies of this planet. Oh yes, some of the philosophical quotes sound very admirable but once put to the test called reality, they suddenly lose their impact. Particularly for the hypocritical in society, they always want people to give & forgive in their quotes but hey, front up with a begging bowl & their quotes all begin with uh umm !
There is only one true philosophy & that is merit ! Unfortunately, that one is the least observed everywhere.
Now back to immigration. Which ethnic group would in your opinion make the most suitable migrants for Australia ? I also invite Aborigines to comment on that. Or, should all migration stop ? No good saying we can't discriminate because that only compounds the problems that are now festering in Australia. Wherever people have been exposed to modern commodities no return to the "old" ways is ever advocated despite the perpetual claims of discrimination & oppression due to consumerism. I have personally witnessed from bleaters of culture & its importance that the traditional habits are rather quickly cast aside for the convenience of enjoying modern ways, no matter who introduces them & no matter what final outcome !

Dear Indyvidual,

So you are neither a beast nor a saint, but somewhere in between, the practical type...

A Chinese proverb says:

"If you have two pennies, spend one on bread and the other on a flower. The bread will sustain life. The flower will give you a reason to live."

«Now back to immigration. Which ethnic group would in your opinion make the most suitable migrants for Australia ?»

Being the practical type, do your research, then encourage those you find suitable by granting them a path to citizenship, welfare, healthcare, protection, etc.

At the same time, though, call it your "flower" if you like, that which gives you the justification to exist, do not forcibly block the others who want to come amicably - do allow them to arrive if they still insist, just without the above perks. My guess is that only a few will.

Also, I just mentioned on the other thread that we ought to take in a significant number of refugees from Taiwan, now that we are no longer able to help saving them from the Chinese: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10565#369059
I think they also happen to be suitable - but that is not the reason.

Being the practical type, do your research, then encourage those you find suitable by granting them a path to citizenship, welfare, healthcare, protection, etc.
Yuyutsu,
Leftist Woke bureaucracy would never agree to that ! Imagine how overwhelmed they'd feel having to come up to that standard ?

We don't need refugees from Taiwan or anywhere else. As Taiwan is a democracy in our region, we should do what we can to help it. But, we don't need more people here to add to the great failure of multiculturalism.

Why weaken Taiwan by letting people leave rather than stay & defend the Nation ?

No, we don't need refugees from anywhere and we don't need extra population at all, but accepting them compassionately is the right thing to do.

If we acted only according to what WE need, then what separates us from the animal kingdom and from Donald Trump?

I wish we could help the people of Taiwan where they are, that would be best, but what can Australia do when it cannot even defend its own shores?

Whereas previously we could hope that America will save Taiwan, even then we were not sure that it can, but try at least, now it is clear that the United States of America is not interested in and have no patience for anything away from its shores, that it wants to divide the world in three, conquer its own third and forget about the others.

A tri-polar world, like in Orwell's "1984", would be the best configuration for oppressing the ordinary population, but what can we do when that is exactly what Trump, Putin and Xi want?

Sorry, but why have an ugly massacre compared to which Gaza would look like a rose garden?
Very sadly, Taiwan's fall is now inevitable and an orderly retreat is now the order of the day.
I do so much wish it was otherwise.

that is exactly what Trump, Putin and Xi want?
Yuyutsu,
They want peace & prosperity for the Nations they lead ! If the Woke crap stirrers stayed out of their way they could achieve that !

Dear Indyvidual,

«They want peace & prosperity for the Nations they lead !»

If that indeed is the case, that this trio indeed believes in that "nation" fallacy, then they certainly want their "nation" big, all three of them, to include many more unhappy people who will then "peacefully" find that there is nowhere left they could escape to...

But well, while this may be their rhetoric, I don't think that any of the three believes in that fallacy anyway - they only believe in themselves, actually not even in that, thus they obsessively need to be glorified by others round the clock so they are never reminded of their smallness.

The "Prosperity" they wish for is not intended for their subjects and certainly not for the newly conquered people of Canada, Panama and Greenland (also respectively, Eastern Europe, Taiwan, Japan, the Philippines and Australia), only for themselves, their families and those who lick their bum: Russian oligarchs, Chinese inner-communist-party circle and pervert monsters like Musk (Steve Bannon in Trump's previous term).

«If the Woke crap stirrers stayed out of their way they could achieve that !»

Indeed, once transgenders find that they cannot escape to freedom by swimming across the Saint Lawrence river (since the other shore is USA as well), nor can Ukrainians escape to Poland (since it would belong to Russia as well), nor religious Chinese to Australia, they would draw the only reasonable conclusion and drown themselves instead.

Free Tibet!
Free Ukraine!
Free Hawaii!

they would draw the only reasonable conclusion and drown themselves instead.
Yuyutsu,
Do you really believe millions of people will top themselves because they can't leave to live somewhere else ?
Apparently in 2022-2023 some 700,000 people moved to Australia of which only 1800 work in the construction industry. 51.600 are said to be skilled but we don't get told in what ! Looks like all these migrants are heading for Australia's Nr 1 Highway-Easy Street ! Why not advocate for Australians to go where these skilled come from & show them what a bit of ordinary work can do to build a Nation ?
I agree with the American working class to put their own Nation before any other. I hope the next Federal Election will go the same way here ! Remember, symbiosis not parasitism !

Dear Indyvidual,

Are you sure that your last response is intended for me and not for someone else?

When I wrote, "they would draw the only reasonable conclusion", etc.
I was specifically referring to transgenders in America; Ukrainians who don't want to be Russians; and religious Chinese people who are prevented from practising their religion there.

How did you possibly get from that into discussing Australian immigration policies?

Yes, I do believe that many transgenders who by Trump's orders are now treated according to their birth-sex will therefore escape to other countries like Canada, and if they cannot (because Canada has become the USA's 51st state), then indeed they will top themselves.
Same with Ukrainians and religious Chinese if they are no longer able to escape.

Yuyutsu,
Tell me, are you for or against society working together ? I believe Democracy & Socialism can not work because we simply can't put everyone in the same basket. Modern society does in fact not support these philosophies yet the academic intellectual elite pushes them as a smokescreen to cover its actual irrelevance. They merely echo ideology but never produce any practical outcome & that in itself creates disunity because by its nature it is parasitism.
These are the benign dictators who keep telling us WE must be compassionate & help those who have no intention to help themselves.
They're not the ones losing their jobs & home ownership prospects by purchasing migrants to vote against those who produce the wealth we all live off.

Dear Indyvidual,

OK, so you have changed the subject and like to talk about something else. Fine with me, then we start a new conversation.

«Tell me, are you for or against society working together?»

I am all for societies that are voluntary.
I do not approve of societies where individuals are included against their will or without being asked first.

The former ought to be working together, after all their members so chose.
The latter ought to have discord, the more the better so they eventually break up.

«I believe Democracy & Socialism can not work because we simply can't put everyone in the same basket.»

I don't mind either, along a range of so many other governance options: once a society is voluntary, these are all optional, depending on what its members want.

«Modern society does in fact not support these philosophies»

Well of course: modern societies are not voluntary, so their philosophy is oppression, "might is right". They do not have my blessing.

«They merely echo ideology but never produce any practical outcome & that in itself creates disunity because by its nature it is parasitism.»

If you don't like parasitism, then go ahead and form your own society where one of its principles is anti-parasitism. So long as society remains involuntary, I wish it many parasites and as much disunity as can possibly be.

«These are the benign dictators who keep telling us WE must be compassionate & help those who have no intention to help themselves.»

I did not tell you to be compassionate: suit yourself and if you don't want to be compassionate then it's your own loss!

«They're not the ones losing their jobs & home ownership prospects by purchasing migrants to vote against those who produce the wealth we all live off.»

These concepts of jobs and home ownership are forced on us by the existing predatory society which never asked us to begin with whether or not we agree to belong to and whether its philosophy is acceptable to us. Why then should I care for it to gain any wealth?

once a society is voluntary, these are all optional, depending on what its members want.
Yuyutsu,
That'd mean many societies within society ! How on Earth can common guidelines be put in place with so many variations ?

Dear Indyvidual,

«That'd mean many societies within society ! How on Earth can common guidelines be put in place with so many variations ?»

Oh, but this is not what I meant:

Each society should be able to choose its internal method of governance, whether that be democracy (direct or representative), monarchy, socialism, capitalism, theocracy, oligarchy or whatever, perhaps some combination but certainly not all at once - different societies are likely to choose different methods and I am happy with them all, whatever the involved people want.

whatever the involved people want.
Yuyutsu,
It's not about "want" it's about harmony & want is the biggest hurdle for harmony ! We all want what's best for us & by that we have to consider our impact on others. A well functioning society can only function well when guidelines are followed instead of crossed.
Willy nilly immigration simply to buy votes is chocking the host society whereas planned immigration is constructive.
Migrants & refugees are not in a position to demand & it is wrong in every aspect for a mismanaging Government to exploit people in need at the expense of those who mistakingly put them into Government.

Dear Indyvidual,

«It's not about "want" it's about harmony & want is the biggest hurdle for harmony !»

When you start a new sentence with "It's", what is the "It" you are referring to? I really have no clue.

«We all want what's best for us & by that we have to consider our impact on others.»

What is best for us has so many layers, depending on our understanding of "us".
Is it what is best for our body (like diet, exercise, etc)?
Is it what is most titillating for our sense-pleasures?
Is it what gives us most comfortable emotions?
Is it what sharpens our intellect?
etc, etc.

I can tell you that, looking somewhat deeper, our impact on others greatly affects our happiness, so it is the very best for us to treat others well.

«A well functioning society can only function well when guidelines are followed instead of crossed.»

Yet there are things more fundamental and more important than having a well functioning society: why should I want society to function well if its existence is based on evil?

First allow me to select a society that is compatible with my values, which is voluntary and which I believe to be a good thing, only then I may begin to be concerned about its guidelines being crossed.

«Willy nilly immigration simply to buy votes...[till the end of your post]»

Well now you change the topic again: By the series of questions you asked me, I believed that we recently started discussing the merits or otherwise of societies and their methods of governance, now you change the subject again to immigration policies.
Could we please keep to one topic at a time?

Perhaps Australians are uninterested in politics and elections because of our “uniquely bad voting system” (law professor, James Allan) which doesn't really allow us to properly discipline our awful politicians, who just want to win, but do bugger- all afterwards.

Take the Dutton Coalition, making itself a small target just to win. While a Coalition government would be somewhat better than the hard-left economy-wrecking, security-wrecking, and China-suckup Albanese sh.itshow, it intends to cling to the worst policy ever: Net Zero, which will keep us as poor and unproductive as we are now. The US has shown the way by uncoupling from Net Zero and other United Nations stupidity, but Dutton the Dill thinks clinging to Labor policies and talking nuclear will get him across the line.

Dutton's attitude to free speech is no different from Albanese's. His side employed that dreadful American women to interfere with our democratic rights.

Dutton says things about mass immigration and a few other dire problems we have; but the Leftists in the Coalition will either prevent him from acting, or do what they did to Tony Abbott. It is a fact that Liberal politicians take more notice of bureaucrats and “advisers” these days than they do of their leaders and the voters.

Australians do not have a clear choice of right or left. There is little difference between the two major parties; and the stupid, stupid preference voting ensures that it will stay that way.

Hence, the lack of interest. My guess is that less than half of Australians would bother voting if they weren't dictatorially made to do so - or at least line up to have their names crossed off.

Dear Ttbn,

Granted, the Australian electoral system is undemocratic and assures that ordinary people cannot be represented.

But why are you against the preference system?

Preferences are there so that if one fails to have their best representative elected, then at least they can try to be represented by their second-best or third-best, rather than have no representation in parliament at all.

It is only a tiny mitigating tool for a horrible electoral system, yet preferences are a small thing in the right direction.

What is absolutely evil, is COMPULSORY preferences, that is when you have to number ALL boxes rather than just as many as you want - or else have your ballot paper deemed informal.

Suppose there are 8 candidates, then while most of the voters who even understand and care, number the smaller parties 1-6, they are still forced to place 7 and 8 next to the twin-big-brothers, thus to elect one of them with their own hand - that is what so wrong around preferences, not preferences themselves.

The political machine - there is no separation between the major parties - is dodging clear and pertinent discussion on the China threat: in general, but in particular the CCPs's aggressive attempt at intimidation by circling Australia and firing weapons.

Nature has provided them with something to help them hide the significance of the China's threatening behaviour - cyclone Alfred: described as an “attempt to increase public anxiety”, by the PM.

Another opportunity to delay an election announcement, and promise more wads of borrowed money in bribes.

These weather “events” are par for that part of Australia; and more preparation for the inevitable would make the population safer. But, no: like building more dams to proof against inevitable droughts, the political class uses the money for totally crap, self-serving political aims. Bugger the voters.

There is no weather or climate change problem in Australia that couldn't have been dealt with much more easily than the problem that China is now, and will be more so, in the not too distant future.

As the late Jim Molan said, Australia needs to be ready to face a scenario where China launches a devastating opening salvo on US communications and intelligence capabilities rendering it blind and unable to assist Australia.

But hey, let's talk about the weather! Keep the plebs ignorant of just how weak Australia's defence is. Leave them to find out when next China patrols our coast, with the aim of cutting off supplies of all the stuff we have only a few weeks supply of. Like the 90% of our fuel which comes from Singapore. We also buy oil from China's ally, Russia. Russia, the country that the idiot (or worse) Albanese wants to send troops against to protect a European country which is of no interest to Australia.

Yuyutsu,

Preferential voting IS compulsory. If that's not a reason to be against it, I don't know what is.

Preferential voting will REMAIN compulsory in Australia because it favours and protects the two, very similar, and getting more similar, major parties.

Compulsory voting itself is bad enough; not numbering every nincompoop standing means your vote is invalid, which is of no concern to the main parties. An informal vote doesn't go against them.

Australians cannot punish the major parties, as can voters in countries with first past the post voting can.

Given the sameness of the only two parties capable of forming a government (virtually a one party system), I'm now starting to give some credence to Diver Dan’s “don't vote” rhetoric. No matter how you vote, you will get pretty much the same sort of arseholes ruling the roost.

Dear Ttbn,

I do like to vote, I just don't want to be the agent through which one of the twin-beasts is elected.

Well of course compulsory voting is evil, but I would continue to vote even if it was no longer compulsory. What I would do then, however, is to not number these twin-beasts, so even if one of them gets elected, that would not be with the help of my own vote thus it would not weigh on my conscience.

As for "first past the post", this would throw the baby with the dirty bath-water, because that would mean that typically over half the voters would not be represented at all and have no say whatsoever about the laws by which they are supposed to abide by.

"First past the post" could work, though, if it was only used to elect the government/PM, separate from electing the parliament. Parliament is the legislative body, making the laws which could send us to jail if we break them, including conscientiously, and so, parliament must represent the actual people who would be subject/victim to its laws and [short of direct voting over the issues, which is best] the only proper and fair way to achieve that is by proportional representation.

what is the "It" you are referring to? I really have no clue.
Yuyutsu,
The "it" stands for everything in society & I'd have thought you'd grasp that !
"It" goes without saying that "things more fundamental and more important than having a well functioning society" is nothing more than philosophical gobbledegook blabber among the ideological non-productive Tax Dollar gobbling irresponsibility promoting intellectuals.
Labor in particular offers such positions to many "refugees" who do not wish to integrate because many of them did not come here for integration. Many come because of the generosity extended to them at the expense of genuine citizens.
How many times have we read "He/she came here with nothing" & within three or so years they're on TV as Dr or Professor so-and-so filmed inside "their home" with nice furniture & paintings on the wall. I know of people born here who worked & worked & worked & still work & can't get a place to rent let alone call it "theirs" ? Yet some of these bought voters from God or only Allah only knows where, have academic & bureaucratic careers within a few short years ? Ah, I see, they "worked really har" & "studied at university". How many of these new voters do we see in constructive blue collar jobs actually contributing to keep the wheels rolling ? When I people I know wanted to do courses we couldn't & you want to know why ?
Because we couldn't get the time of work to attend & pay money for the courses at the same time. Yet, many of "these" people Got paid to attend ! Yes, I & many I know can tell a few stories about prejudice & racism & DEI & quota !

Dear Indyvidual,

Your long comment about the Labor party; certain immigrants; academic degrees; jobs; housing affordability; etc. etc., pertains to a given society and deals with its internal matters.

It is understandable that once you have your society, you care for its cohesion, economics and other such internal affairs.

So having clarified what "It" means for you, your earlier statement becomes:

"Everything in society is not about "want" but about harmony & want is the biggest hurdle for harmony !"

Well, I have no interest in harmony (or economic success, productivity, etc.) within a society that forces itself on everyone who just happens to be living within a given region or continent without even asking them first whether or not they wish to belong to it, whether or not they agree with its principles, even whether or not these principles are consistent with their moral/ethical values.

So as for joining you in attempting to solve your society's woes, thanks, but no thanks.

Yuyutsu,
Which society is enabling you to make a living now ?

Dear Indyvidual,

I am fine and living by God's grace.

This beautiful Psalm 118 is appropriate here and summarises one's relation with God versus societies.
It is a good read, but too long to quote, so here are just verses 6-11:

"
When hard pressed, I cried to the Lord;
he brought me into a spacious place.

The Lord is with me; I will not be afraid.
What can mere mortals do to me?

The Lord is with me; he is my helper.
I look in triumph on my enemies.

It is better to take refuge in the Lord
than to trust in humans.

It is better to take refuge in the Lord
than to trust in princes.

All the nations surrounded me,
but in the name of the Lord I cut them down.

They surrounded me on every side,
but in the name of the Lord I cut them down.
"

Yuyutsu,
So, I take it you don't go to Supermarkets or drive a vehicle or use a Bank account ?
I envy your ability to not have to rely on interaction with others !

Dear Indyvidual,

«So, I take it you don't go to Supermarkets or drive a vehicle or use a Bank account ?»

Did I tell you any of that?

Yuyutsu,
Thanks for confirming what I've suspected for a long time. You really aren't all there are you !

Dear Indyvidual,

It seems that you changed the topic again in your last three posts:
Are we still discussing societies and their governance?
Or is it that you like to discuss immigration policies instead?
My personal life could not be any further than the topic here.

There is no secret that the Labor Party is a socialist party. This is stipulated clearly in its constitution. It is opposed to people who value the inherent rights, freedoms and privileges of a democratic system of governance in which representatives are charged to administer the will of the majority on any given issue.

Appalling though he has been as PM - the worst ever - Albanese still wants 4 years terms so that he can commit more mischief.

The 4 year terms inflicted on the states prove without a shadow of doubt that an extra year of the same people just makes them even more useless for longer, and more arrogant and complacent.

Senators should have to front up every 3 years as well.

Senators should have to front up every 3 years as well.
ttbn,
Senior bureaucrats also ! I'd like the Public Service Unions to explain how they come to justify some of the insanely exorbitant salaries ! We can't achieve no inflation as long as so many get so immorally overpaid.