Belly,
Where ever did you get the idea that we (Australia) cannot say who comes here and how many. I know the ALP reckoned that we could not stop the boats but Abbott and Morison showed the ALP wrong. We certainly can say who comes and goes and we can use our defense forces to ensure that if need be. We can simply not issue visas to those we do not like for whatever reason and, hey presto, they do not gain entry.

I am sure that the LNP would love you to take your theory to the election or will the ALP do a Rudd and say one thing before the election and then open slather after. Rest assured, we have the power.

Here's a really nonsensical comment about immigrants from Jennine Khalik writing as a “specialist reporter” for ABC Online. She describes a group of young people in Middle Eastern 'shisha’ cafe (presumably a representation of such a thing and not actually in the Middle East) blowing clouds of “mint flavoured” smoke about.

The nonsense is this: Khalik says that they could “pass for ANY GROUP OF FRIENDS”. Oh, yeah: how many people suck on hookahs and pass the stem around unhygienically?

And, what about the rules on smoking in cafes?

The point of the article - they are trying to escape Islam (but not the filthy hookah habit) is not the one that attracted me; it's the impression that we are supposed to believe that these aliens are just good old Aussies like the rest of us, even though they manage to slip in the hackneyed rot about “Islamophobia” and “anti-Muslim bigotry” - ignoring the fact that they are the ones trying to escape the very thing that encourages people to be anti-Islam.

*Further to previous discussion - related to Foxy's points.

UN can offer leadership on issues (soft power, see Joseph Nye) but not tyranize (hard power) the countries populations. Sovereignty need to take responsibility for laws that they make.

With nuclear power there is always going to be a power imbalance. All nuclear powers have UN veto power or will soon with the possible exception of North Korea. If Korea and China vote as a block it could change the power structure in the UN - dangerous dominoes - but funny.

Its mandate was fairly arbitrary in the first place - this arbitrary law was the main objection to the British in the US Declaration of Independence. Its an excuse for governments to adopt policies without accountability. Implementing Taylorism (gears in a machine - free flow / free market of business costs - labour, money, resources) and Trotskyism (culture is the wedge that enables the employer to enslave them as they are divided from their comrades in other countries - Cultural Revolution in China).
The governments of countries can say its not our fault it's the UN. But the UN (especially the veto powers) is made up of the left or right governments (the socs and caps) of the world - they both have the same agenda- they're the same people. There needs to been a movement to ALT governments in the world to save it - in Australia that means voting for no / low immigration independents in the senate - such as Pauline Hanson - and punishing them harshly if they betray their stand. And weeding out the dominant parties - in favour of a more sophisticated understanding of the world - "Bellum omnium contra omnes" rather than "the enemy of my enemy is my friend"

Few want business in a free market - once their salable commodities are commoditized - they're devalued - whether you are selling labour, loaning money, or selling resources. If you decrease the value of money - example by creating bitcoin - you increase supply over demand - increasing the value of labour and resources. Alternatives to a resource - decrease its value - by increasing market supply - increasing money/ labour. Public utilities are business apotheoses due to insulation from commoditization.

If "businesses insulate why shouldn't people" insulate and protect ourselves from commoditization by protecting our land.

An increasing population of the world and the value of land increases exponentially. Maltusian perspective interesting here - Food produced arithmetically - population produced geometrically: Scarce land implies prices somewhat geometrically with population increases:

"Exponentials piled upon exponentials..."

The best way to take advantage of land resources by renting not selling it, it's more valuable than anything we could buy with it. This wasn't always the case when the world population was lower - especially due to the industrial revolution. Otherwise the population that breeds the fastest is the one that gets the stuff.

In this scenario the bad actors get rewarded.

We're importing irresponsible breeding cultures. People that support this are expanding environmental damage, poverty, and concentrating power in the world.

We think we are helping the poor of the world by importing economic immigrants but most of the immigrants are from relatively rich families.

Property increases, accompanied by stagnation as productivity per unit area will decrease. Commodities such as food sold on the world market will be sold at world prices but there will be less work because of bigger factories.

"Rich" individuals in rich countries are "buying money" with their support / promotion of immigration - "they get rich we pay" and though we're in a rich country we don't benefit that much.

In our isolated protected past - transport improved - if we are to protect ourselves we need to do it "actively" or be "overrun".

We have democratic "power" of the law if we "act".

Canem Malum wrote: "We're importing irresponsible breeding cultures. People that support this are expanding environmental damage, poverty, and concentrating power in the world."

That is true. However, the countries with irresponsible breeding cultures will continue to export human beings from their overcrowded lands. By supporting education for women and population planning including sex education, contraception and access to abortion clinics Australia can help relieve the pressure for immigration from those countries.

I'm not sure that big-breeding Muslims are keen on abortion, david f. Evidence shows that Muslims have no intention of changing their ways. It is us they want to change, not themselves: this is the whole point of immigration to the West. And the West is paying for them to do it via welfare and family payments. Anyone who knows anything about Islam (and you are clearly not one of those people) is aware that Muslims intend to conquer us 'by our own hand’. So far, we have been obliging them well beyond expectations.

We have dangerously undermined free thought, free speech, equality before the law and the right to a fair trial: “western” values that would not long ago have been considered sacrosanct. If all of a sudden we have a chilly sense of our civilisation under threat, the fault is largely our own.

We continue to commit sucide by mass immigration.