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 ?