Paul

Hitler is secondary to what History shows us.

What the history of world war2 shows us is this.
That when the German economy failed after the Great Depression.
One tribe turned on the other and slaughtered it.

Yet you wish to set up multi tribes together in one economy.

Ok, let's bring millions of the world refugees in here,
History also shows us another example of how that works.
The terrortorial dogfight between the Jews and Palestinians.

Your misguided use of Hitler as an example to support, immigration
Actually supports the other side of the argument.

Tribes don't live together in peace, in the long term,(notice I didn't sat the short term.)Hitler is a vivid example of why it is a very bad idea to set up multiculturalism.
And support mass immigration.
Ironical that you and many others use Hitler and what happened in Germany as a
Beacon for supporting immigration. There is no logic to that analogy.

In my opinion 90% of these people who come to Australia by boats are not seeking asylum but are in fact seeking citizenship. They should be given the title of Citizenship Demanders not Asylum Seekers.

I find it impossible that every single one of these people face imminent and serious risk to their safety and that of their family. Such claims are far to readily accepted.

Getting people from the second and the third world to immigrate into the first world is in fact someones plan, as immigration is being used as a weapon of war. Not all weapons of war a violent. Cultural weapons make good weapons also.

Immigration is intended to destroy national pride and national identity. A nation divided is an easy nation to take over from the inside out.

A nation with a strong sense of identity and a strong sense of national pride like Israel, who takes no refugees from anywhere, is not a good candidate for surrendering its sovereignty as it appears Sweden is in the process of doing.

Hey Cherful,
Hitler probably gets used as an example to demonise Nationalism.

Demonising nationalism in Australia is pretty stupid because we're an island continent.
We've got all the land we need already, why would we want to steal anyone else's?
And it's not like NZ or Indonesia are going to build land bridges where we have a land border and start discussion whether or not we should have an open society between our nations. Its absurd.
And not having pride in ourselves as a nation might be compared to a human being who does not have pride in him or herself.
Like some depressed shadow of a person with psychological issues.

Referundemdrivensocienty,
Nicely said.

Look at the wages here, and then ask yourself where would you go, especially if you heard about this magical place called 'Centrelink'.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_minimum_wages_by_country

Greetings Shadow, don't take this as a complement, as none is intended, but as one of the wisest conservatives (and I suspect you are a liberal not a conservative) on the forum was that statement "the government still has plenty of options", in the light of the PNG ruling." just political or do you think so? Given that Nauru has stated that they will only act as a holding pen and not a final destination for asylum seekers, and given PNG have said they will not take anyone who is not voluntary. The 'Cambodian Solution' at $55M for 2, seems financially unrealistic, even if you don't consider the humanitarian aspect.
I'll agree probably short term these people on Manus can be packed off to Nauru, but that is only short term. Both the government and opposition need to come up with a bipartisan long term policy on refugees, which we don't have at the moment, considering a new dimension has been added, ie large numbers of people on the move, whereby previously refugees were held in localised camps, and processing could be controlled in a somewhat orderly fashion, that is no longer the case. On a world scale so far Australia has omly be subjected to a trickle of uninvited asylum seeker, but there is a distinct possibility that trickle could tern into a flood.

just as a side, I think even though Turnbull is talking tough he is not an ardent supported of the offshore solutions. not having the support within the party, or from the electorate, Turnbull is bending with the breeze towards the hard lone.

Paul1405, "even though Turnbull is talking tough he is not an ardent supported of the offshore solutions. not having the support within the party, or from the electorate"

That is your wishful thinking and spin. It is as usual entirely without basis of course.

From The Australian:
<"Malcolm Turnbull has categorically ruled out bringing the asylum-seekers detained on Manus Island to Australia, warning against becoming “misty-eyed” about the plight of more than 900 asylum-seekers and refugees in limbo on the island.

Although his Immigration Minister Peter Dutton has chosen his words carefully – indicating some refugees may be allowed to come to Australia on a non-permanent basis – the Prime Minister today declared “none of the detainees there will come to Australia”.

“We are seeking to ensure that the people detained at Manus can either settle in PNG as they have the opportunity to do, or in third countries, but they will not come to Australia. I want to be very, very clear about that,” Mr Turnbull said in Hobart..

“There will be no transfer of those individuals to Australia because to do that would send a signal to the people smugglers to get back into business, and that is utterly unacceptable.”>

Beach, I wasn't addressing you. As an 'On Line Opinion Forum' I was offering an opinion, do you have a problem with that?

I base that opinion on Turnbull's past, he wasn't overly active in the days when Abbott was spruiking his hard line on refugees, at that time Turnbull was considered one of the more liberal Liberals.

Today Turnbull is very much dependent on the hard liners in the party for support, they put him into the number one job, not because of his political philosophy, but for his elect-ability and therefore their's, they can just as easily put him out, and he knows that.

Much of the political posturing may have more to do with establishing Turnbulls credentials with the hard right than anything else.