Yuyutsu "They would not be allowed into cities unless invited"

I thought we couldn't "block" people's free movement?
How exactly do you stop someone entering a city?
With a perimeter wall?

"If a dingo or crocodile enters a city endangering lives, then they are euthanased"

So we can't "block" them, but we can KILL them!
Your "ethics" just get more ridiculous the more you speak.

"No, humans do not own God's land"

'Fraid so.
Many of us doubt or disbelieve in "God", so why should such ideology apply to us?
If God exists, he allowed their souls to be born in the Third World.
They are defying God's will by demanding more than what he gave them.

"You (and your neighbours) own your neighbourhood and your workplace because you've poured all your sweat into it, but you cannot say the same about a whole country"

But this neighbourhood/workplace is connected to that neighbourhood/workplace, in an extensive web of relationships commonly called a "society" or "nation".

And that society/nation MUST exist in a *physical* space, a "territory".
That is why these conventions you dismiss so readily were invented thousands of years ago.

"nobody is allowed to change your reasonable space to non-white without your consent."

They are doing so every day.
When did I give my consent to this social transformation?

"Would you ever agree to become a Muslim because it's aggressive?"

No, but then they'd hang me.

"Entering the continent should not be a ticket into Australian society."

Well, it is.
Because the "ticket" is "access all areas".
Once here, there are no limits on the movements or actions of any person (within the law).

"Certain wishes are legitimate, others not."

Yes, the one-sided wishes of immigrants are "legitimate" to you.
The wishes of native-born Whites? GO TO HELL!

Dear Shockadelic,

<<I thought we couldn't "block" people's free movement?
How exactly do you stop someone entering a city?
With a perimeter wall?>>

There are numerous ways, although probably none are politically-correct. As checking the traffic coming into a city would be too disruptive and as the danger is usually in the long term rather than immediate, I would concentrate mostly on what to do with them once caught... and it wouldn't be pleasant...

<<So we can't "block" them, but we can KILL them!>>

It's OK to kill in self-defence, but not OK to block others out of greed for what isn't yours. The difference between us is probably that you believe that this whole continent belongs to your people, because if it were, then indeed it would be OK to block others at the border.

<<so why should such ideology apply to us?>>

The reasons may vary, but the relevant part is that the land isn't yours. If you don't believe in God, then it's even better because then you can't believe that He gave you the land.

<<an extensive web of relationships commonly called a "society" or "nation".>>

Society is usually a good thing and is voluntary, but a "nation" is too big to be voluntary (unless you were able to first ask each and every of over a million farmers, and others who don't live in cities, and they all unanimously answered "yes, we want to be part of it", which is extremely unlikely).

<<And that society/nation MUST exist in a *physical* space, a "territory".>>

Not necessarily: if one is a member of 5 different societies, then on which territory is their house built? one society has the kitchen and the other has the bathroom?

As for nations, yes they mostly exist in a territory (with few exceptions, such as the Jews pre-Israel), but this kind of society is way too big, immoral and should not exist.

<<They are doing so every day.>>

Then stop them. That's a matter for the police.

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<No, but then they'd hang me.>>

Dangerous beasts that are inclined to kill people should not be allowed into the country, that's simple self-defence, so same for people who're inclined to hang others who do not agree with them. I thought this was so obvious that it needn't be mentioned.

<<Well, it is.
Because the "ticket" is "access all areas".
Once here, there are no limits on the movements or actions of any person (within the law).>>

But there are restrictions on the movements and actions of animals and these immigrants who are not accepted into Australian society would be coming in their capacity as animals, not in the capacity of persons.

Actually even with persons, today there are already cases where people under court-orders are prevented from entering certain areas where they can do harm.

<<Yes, the one-sided wishes of immigrants are "legitimate" to you.
The wishes of native-born Whites?>>

But I haven't said that: What I meant was that certain wishes OF NATIVE-BORN WHITES are legitimate, other wishes not.

Dear Hippie,

Your questions and those of Shockadelic largely overlap, so I believe that you will find many questions answered above. I did find this following question unique though:

<<but if the word is out the borders are open to all arrivals you'll have exactly the same situation Italy faces everyday from African's crossing the Mediterranean.>>

Italy, being part of the European Union, plays it politically-correct: it would never be ready to treat people like animals, so the two options left are to either treat them better than animals or to treat them worse than animals: Italy chose the former, Australia chose the latter and I promote the middle-way.

Yuyutsu, your replies are so crazy they are no longer worth commenting on. I learned long ago that you can't have a rational discussion with the insane.

Dear Conservative,

Whatever your reason for not wishing to continue this discussion, I thank you for it. At the moment I am sick with fever and not having to use my meagre strength to reply to your questions would give me more time to rest, drink lots of water and get well sooner.

Yuyutsu "the danger is usually in the long term rather than immediate"

Tell that to Lee Rigby.

"It's OK to kill in self-defence, but not OK to block others out of greed for what isn't yours"

The greed is on their side of the fence, darling.

Most Australians just manage to survive financially from one week to the next.
Why shouldn't any opportunities go to the existing population first?

"you believe that this whole continent belongs to your people"

Yes, the present generation are just the latest of many whose "sweat" built up this web of connections we call a "nation/society".

That web extends across the whole continent, just as Japan's does across an archipelago.
That a large landmass constitutes a nation's territory is just the result of historical circumstances.
It is no different to the Maltese "owning" a tiny island.

"you can't believe that He gave you the land."

No, we took it. It's ours now.

We can possess anything, natural or manmade (all manmade items are derived somehow from nature).
We own pets, livestock, rain in our watertanks, flowerbeds, crops and land.
Humans invent their perceptions of reality and people have always believed they can "own" aspects of nature like land.
So we do, because we say so.

It's not unique to Man either.
Most animals have "territories" too and are equally reluctant to share them with outsiders.

"yes [nations] mostly exist in a territory (with few exceptions, such as the Jews pre-Israel)"

Ah, but they *did* have a territory once and now have one again.
Checkmate!

"Dangerous beasts that are inclined to kill people should not be allowed into the country."

But you'd be "blocking" them! Omigod!
How do you know someone's dangerous beforehand.
You just said a minute ago, you had to wait until trouble surfaced and then act (unpleasantly).

"certain wishes OF NATIVE-BORN WHITES are legitimate, other wishes not."

Which ones?
Who made you Judge Judy?
Surely adults can decide for themselves what they desire and don't need the approval of you or others to express that desire.