Hey Toni,
Well yes, if you have a peice of paper that says you're Australian then you are one I guess, and the government has a responsibility to look after all it's people.

But there's a difference between being an Aussie by title an an Aussie at heart.

I think some people could be here less than a week and other Aussies might say "Yep, you're Aussie" and others could be here 30yrs and other Aussies would say "Not a chance..."

Personally I think the government cares more about the needs, wants and potential voting preferences of people who have been here less than a week than they do about people who were born, live and build their entire lives here.

[Got it right that time, 'their' my spelling and grammar isn't perfect as many will know, but it's probably a whole lot better than the majority of todays school-leavers]

I'm not specifically having a go at immigrants as much as I'm having a go at our sell-out leaders who do things in support of globalism.
Immigration is just one part of that.

When was the last time ANY western nation saw one of it's leaders on the end of a flagpole waving the nations flag?

- And it's not just the ones I personally approve of Toni;

It's the government who consistently pays little attention to a large segment of its own people.

//Personally I think the government cares more about the needs, wants and potential voting preferences of people who have been here less than a week than they do about people who were born, live and build their entire lives here.//

Political parties don't actually care about your needs or wants apart from how they influence your vote. These are not charitable, benevolent organisations: they're in it for the wealth and power.

The ABS informs me that 28% of our population were born overseas, which means 72% weren't. 72% is an absolute majority. Any political party courting the vote of 28% of the population in favour of the vote of 72% of the population is A) doing it wrong, B) bloody stupid, and C) doomed to failure.

//When was the last time ANY western nation saw one of it's leaders on the end of a flagpole//

Wikipedia informs that flagpole sitting died out as a hobby in the 1930's with the onset of the Great Depression. Presumably people were too busy looking for work to sit about at the top of a pole for weeks on end.

The religious practice of stylitism, a form of asceticism named after the 5th century St. Simeon Stylites who lived at the top of a pole for 47 years, is still being performed by a few religious nutjobs. An Eastern Orthodox Monk has spent the last 20 years on the top of a pole in Georgia. But I doubt there are any stylites in the parliament of any nation, for a number of obvious reasons.

Frankly, I expect my leaders to be doing something a bit more productive and useful than pole sitting or flag waving. We can easily outsource those jobs to unemployed young people. In fact, it would be a much better idea than assigning it to our politicians. It's unskilled labour, so it won't pay well, but healthy, attractive young people make for better flag wavers than grumpy old men.

The difference between patriotism and nationalism is that the patriot is proud of his country for what it does , and the nationalist is proud of his country no matter what it does; the first attitude creates a feeling of responsibility while the second a feeling of blind arrogance that leads to a war.

Sidney Harris

Steele, love that quote. So true. Nationalism is based on hate of others, and anything based on hate cannot be good.
I believe, having talked to lots of ordinary people over many years of political involvement, that the vast majority are neither, more likely they simply want to lives their lives, meeting their aspirations, and more concerned with their family and daily business than the nation.

Not necessarily, Paul: love for one's own country can easily go with admiration for other countries. For all sorts of reasons, I have great admiration for Tanzania although I've never been there. I love New Zealand, it's such a beautiful country and the people are so accepting wherever you go, and Canada and Vietnam too. We can differentiate between an admiration for a country, its people, ethos, landscapes, etc, and its government. But I love this country too and pretty much most of the people here, especially in the parts where I've lived. It's not either/or.

On the other hand, let's not forget that excessive love of one's group or region or country, especially if that 'love' has to be set against a corresponding distrust or dislike of another group or region or country, perhaps based on a false belief in the superiority of one's own - known as 'identity politics' - can be very destructive, and ultimately pointless, since no group is any better or worse than anybody else.

What worries me is the withering away of the old Marxist principle of internationalism, a recognition that people everywhere may have the same abilities and aspiration and rights, that no group should have superior rights over any other. Again that comes back to a suspicion about 'identity politics' and its essentialist and right-wing tendencies. But again, it's not either/or: we can have a deep love and yearning for our birth-country, or our adopted country, alongside a sense that all people are 'brothers' wherever they are.

Joe

Thanks Joe, I agree, that is in the background of people. I met a bloke from Iran last night at the club, I actually took him to be French or some other European. I said I haven't seen you for a while, said I've been back "home" for 3 months. But he has been in Australia for over 20 years, very Aussie in so many ways, said Iran is a great country, his mother and father along with other family members are there, so that what he misses most, parents are getting old and his father is not in the best of health.
p/s He was wearing a gold cross around his neck, I assume he is a Iranan Christian. Seemed very Australian to me,