Frank wrote on Jan 12^th, 2023 at 5:43pm:


Oh, I see. You like Swedish now, do you?

Cunning, no?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 17^th, 2023 at 9:03am:



Just accept that you will never dispose of 'national sovereignty' and move on.  We are not 'forced' to deal with the consequences of people forced to flee etc - what is at question here and now is the values applied on who gets in and who doesn't and on what basis.

Huge difference.  Australia could lock the gates tomorrow - no difference to how it's actually handled - but we have NO compulsion to take in anyone - it's a voluntary component of our (gasps) national sovereignty - the alternative is to be wide open to invasion from anyone and anywhere.

I'd suggest you start with the more recalcitrant nations first in your Noble Crusade... get - say - Iran and Afghanistan - many African nations - China... Russia and so forth to accept your global rule of Capital City - then we can start on the 'easy' nations, eh?

99 Luftballons.... filled with Hot Air.  So governments are deluded in bringing in endless queues of non-residents/Outlanders etc to sustain 'growth' - and yet your concept will not be infinitely worse in having wide open gates, which apparently will have no effect on anything inside?  Perhaps you need to look at the concept of comparative growth/economic power and distribution of prosperity.

A Third World cesspot will not 'grow' substantially.... and yet you want to feed its people off the 'growth' and prosperity of others?

thegreatdivide wrote on Jan 17^th, 2023 at 10:32am:


Absurdities all the way through... try again.

Time to put the plug in on immigration and start to nurture our own first and stop this insane artificial growth of a ridiculous housing scheme which is about the only game in town these days apart from Offshore Pirates robbing natural resources out of the ground and actually charging us to do it.

This country is full already and we don't need any more.... and while we're at it - let's use our national sovereignty as fully supported by the UN, and Reverse Boat People those who don't want to be a constructive part of the future of this nation.... head 'em up and move 'em out.... along with those who claim they are sovereign citizens of somewhere else here - some fairyland of the past... round 'em up and move 'em to a safe space.....  Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's - and unto Abo lore that which is Abo lore.... but when in Roma, don't shoot the cops....

An important piece of research released on Wednesday by the Australian Population Research Institute shows, says its author, demographer Katharine Betts, that “many Australians feel silenced and afraid to speak on some public matters … because they don’t want to be labelled as racist”.

Her conclusion is based on a detailed survey last year of more than 3000 Australians (weighted to be representative) who were asked: “Do you think that people who raise questions about immigration being too high are sometimes seen as racist?” Only 36 per cent said no and 13 per cent “don’t know”.

The 51 per cent who said yes were then asked to choose between two statements: “This is unfair because very few of them are racist”, to which 33 per cent of the overall sample agreed; or “This is because they usually are racist”, to which 19 per cent agreed.

Betts says this 19 per cent, whom she terms “guardians against racism”, who were disproportionately in favour of high immigration and felt disproportion­ately more free to talk about their views, tended to be “younger, better educated and more financially secure than other voters” and therefore had a “pervasive … role in keeping a lid on open debate”.

“Theirs is a moral position, not a material one” she says, and “because of this they are likely to see those who don’t share their position as morally suspect and to see their shaming as legitimate”.

These guardians against rac­ism, Betts says, have created a “censorious climate” that “mutes public discussion but seems not to have changed the opinions of the majority”.

Overall, 70 per cent thought Australia should have “somewhat lower”, “much lower” or “nil” levels of net migration. Yet thanks to her so-called guardians against racism, Betts thinks, this strong majority is rarely heard in public debate and has almost no impact on public policy.

July 2023
Katharine Betts, Free speech on immigration versus the guardians against racism
https://tapri.org.au/research-reports/
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/commentary/its-not-racist-to-debate-immigration...

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 27^th, 2023 at 11:23am:

We are talking about Australian immigration in this thread, silly parrot.
Federal Politics board.

thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 27^th, 2023 at 2:48pm:

No. Those are illegal would-be queue jumpers who were told, loud and clear, not to try to come on people smuggler boats. Buf they were like you: couldn't listen and learn.

They are not locked up on Manus Island, they are free to go wherever they want to go, China,  Vietnam, Japan, India, Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, anywhere.
Just not Australia.