Dear Shockadelic,

You talk about the homeless and the poor in our country but I recall you being dead against a mining super-profits tax. Our three major mining tycoons own more personal wealth that the bottom million Australians. I'm not sure immigrants should be paying the price of the spiralling inequity in this nation of ours but that is an aside.

We are one of the richest countries in the world yet are one of the most insistent on highly skilled or wealthy individuals make up the bulk of our migration stream.

You say “If you want them to "breathe free", help improve the conditions in their homelands.” yet Abbott has dramatically cut our overseas aid budget while countries like the UK, even with a conservative PM, are increasing theirs. It is now at .56% of GDP compared to our .36% and that was before the 8 billion is stripped from it over the next 5 years.

If the world lived by your mantra there would be no poor immigrants being given places in developed nations and aid would dry to a trickle. Thankfully much of the developed world does not think this way but I am increasingly depressed about the selfishness exhibited by some Australians and echoed by our governments.

I had thought we were better than that.

I opposed the mining tax for the same reason I oppose most other taxes.
I want a *simple* tax system, a singular unavoidable tax on bank transactions.

Gina will pay it too, and there'll be no deduction, rebate or exemption loopholes.
You can't fudge and fiddle your way out of it.

"I'm not sure immigrants should be paying the price of the spiralling inequity in this nation"

Potential immigrants.
They're not immigrants unless we let them in.

"Potential immigrants" in the Third World may be paying a price they don't deserve, but that's the consequences of a million decisions already made throughout history.

There's not much our domestic policies (including taxation) can do about it.

"no poor immigrants being given places in developed nations and aid would dry to a trickle".

Excuse me, there's no "poor" people in Very High countries?

I proposed *free* movement of people between Very High countries.

That means poor Americans (even Black ones!), poor Brits (even Black ones!), poor French (even Black ones!) could migrate here.

Aid from the government would end, yes.
Not from *you*, as under my single bank transaction tax, you'd probably have more to spare.

*You* can choose to donate, along with millions of other Australians.

The government is supposed to collect taxes for *our* benefit, not the benefit of the citizens of other nations or international organisations.

I'm depressed by the *lack* of genuine selfishness in our people and governments.

Many Australians are apathetic, complacent, live-for-the-weekend dolts.
I don't know why I try to defend them.

If we're destroyed by our own cluelessness, maybe we deserve destruction.

Hail Multopia! Bringer of Doom!

SteeleRedux, "We are one of the richest countries in the world yet are one of the most insistent on highly skilled or wealthy individuals make up the bulk of our migration stream"

No, some are hairdressers and other semi-skilled occupations who are brought in to take care of the many thousands of lazy, tattooed, whining, sociopathic drunks who rely on others to support them.

It has been the constant complaint of building trades I hire that they cannot get young men OR WOMEN to take up the training and well-paid work that they offer. Why is it for instance that a roof tiler is forced to recruit his crew from overseas?

It is so typical of the Greens that they would prefer 'open door' immigration where they give preference to those buff young men who take the illegal route to Australia, destroying their papers en-route, and taking their spot in the Centrelink queues forever.

Australia's prosperity and freedom were hard fought. Why don't those buff young male economic migrants take care of their women at home?

Dear Shockadelic,

I think it is pretty telling that both you and OTB are so down on even your own countrymen. The circle of those you consider 'worthy' does not really extend to our borders does it? Rather it is far tighter.

As I alluded to earlier this is more about attitudes rather than facts. We obviously have differing views on humanity and they will obviously impact on the way we feel about refugees and immigration.

Dear OTB,

Sorry mate but “buff young male economic migrants” and “buff young men”?

That had me head scratching for a bit but then I remembered an earlier exchange around Adam Goodes.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5804#163769

As I said at the time these are deep seated issues you might need to see someone about. I reiterate that advice here.

Steelredux,

<< I said at the time these are deep seated issues you might need to see someone about>>

I think you are the one who has cognitive issues that serioesly need addressing. You clearly have a problem with retention. And only one of your eyes seems to be functional.

SteeleRedux, there is nothing wrong with either view, but a realist/pessimist view will prevent much potential turmoil, while an idealist/optimist view will make insufficient preparation for it.

So in the long run, idealism/optimism, while appearing nicer, can produce worse outcomes, as sensible precautions are not taken.

Idealism/optimism has produced some of the world's worst tragedies (Nazism, Communism, the Inquisition, Jim Jones).
It's the idealists' big dreams that often turn into nightmares.

Choosing immigrants from populations that are observably, verifiably sophisticated/successful is one sensible precaution we should take.

Humans are apes, not angels.
To much stress and the snarling and chestbeating begins.

We've come a long way, baby. But it's a fragile thing this "civilisation".
It's crumbled before and can do so again.