It is the usual red herring being dragged across in front of the sheeple and distracting them from the jackboot policy of one term tony.
It will not make one iota of difference in about 6 years time and Oz will have run out of it's own oil, making it a totaly dependent on any country that is willing to sell us some oil.
The price of fuel will be around $8 per litre and the economy will be in a nose dive.
Will we still be worrying about "boat people" then?
I think not.
But we will have all these new super roads that would have been clogged by traffic if there had been enough fuel to run them.
We are being lead to our destruction as a sovereign nation by these furphies that take out eyes from our real problems.
Grow up people and take a look around at what is really happening.

It is evident that some posting here make no contribution to public debate, by research or fact but are no more than abusive trolls and should be banned from the site.

Dear Ludwig,

I agree that not a cent should go towards immigration.
But so many dollars are spent on preventing immigration.

What is morally repugnant is when a group of people believe and act as if they have a right to decide who may and who may not live in this continent (just to clarify, I'm not arguing against self-defence, so I'm not referring to immigrants/visitors who pose a criminal or health risks - just the others).

Population explosion is a global problem, based on the genetic compulsion to procreate. It would be neither exacerbated nor averted by telling people where they may or may not live.

I happen to know two (unrelated) people, both retired with children in Australia. For some years they have been alternating, like clockwork, spending 12 months with their family in Australia, on tourist visas, followed by 6 months in "exile", seeing their new grandchildren only on Skype, while their older ones miss them too. They have come to be part of the community here, so everyone knows and farewells them when their time comes when they must fly out and waits to see them back.

They do not take any Australian funds - on the contrary, they bring money into Australia. It's just that somehow they didn't match the formal immigration criteria, or the quota for people like them was already full.

What cruelty! What stupidity!

(and for the environment-lovers, how are their forced frequent air-trips contribute to the environment?)

Who are those people that allow themselves to play God over others, either inviting or denying entry to a continent they never created?

Ludwig,

Anyone that thinks there is a connection between skilled migration and granting asylum is seriously mistaken. Skilled migrants get no access to welfare, free housing, medicare, public education etc, immediately pay taxes, speak English, and if they don't contribute in a meaningful way are sent home, and largely contribute to the welfare of all Australians.

None of the above applies to asylum seekers, who even if they don't arrive illegally, cost hundreds of thousands in welfare, teaching etc.

Yuyutsu,

Given the above and the existing budget problems, one cannot seriously consider opening the borders, and killing thousands as labor did.

Dear SM,

<<Given the above and the existing budget problems, one cannot seriously consider opening the borders, and killing thousands as labor did.>>

By "killing" I assume you refer to refugees and others who come by boat: I was never suggesting to kill them, but if they choose to take dangerous sea-trips in leaky boats, then they may kill themselves. In that case, the tax-payer should not be paying to rescue them. If individuals or charitable NGOs wish to do so with their own money, then sure they can.

Now what I was discussing with Ludwig is immigration in general, not specifically boat-people.

I consider it two distinct matters:
1. People coming to live in the continent of Australia.
2. People coming to live in the state of Australia.

What I said is that nobody has a moral right to deny #1, except as required in self-defence (e.g. when there is a threat of crime and/or contagious disease).

As for #2, nothing obliges you to accept people into your society.

<< Skilled migrants get no access to welfare, free housing, medicare, public education etc.>>

Neither should others, unless accepted as Australian citizens.

Those two people I referred to above are not asking for any of it (in fact they do pay taxes, speak English, and contribute in a meaningful way, pity their taxes currently go to governments of other countries because they are not recognised as residents). All they want is to be with their families and the families too want their grandparents to live with them all the time, rather than just 2/3 of the time. You have every right to deny them participation in the Australian state, but you have no right to deny them and their families the freedom to live together in this continent.

Nhoj, in response to your second paragraph, may I suggest you go for a walk down Lygon street Melbourne if you think they don't form communities.

But, unlike our own layabout, they stole my land brigade, these immigrants work for a living and didnt come here with the attitude of entitlement, as do so many today. I mean, where else can one arrive with ZERO, then have 11 kids at $5 grand a pop, then sit back and enjoy the view.

Many of these leaches have sucked their last blood out of us and hooray for that I say.

Furthermore, back in the early days of immigration, we had no religion that practiced hatred and harm to all who don't follow that religion.

We are simply no longer that country.

If you believe that immigration has not changed you are kidding yourself, but you're not kidding me.