Immigration Restrictions

[bubble sunglasses]

agree with the recent posts. also people might not have english proficiency as a top priority. when I was in France, there were lots of Anglophone people I knew who just spoke English; I wanted to speak French at every opportunity, but that was just a personal preference and personal preferences aren't of much value in debates

 
    this bloody country isnt putting much into being multilingual, its so fucking shit. grosse putain de merde salope enculer conard salaud

 MORT DE RIRE!!!!

[droodles]

i didnt say mort de rire, pourquoi t'as changé ce que j'ai dit?

[brendan]

Freedom of immigration will always affect Australian taxpayers full stop.

How does "Freedom of immigration will always affect Australian taxpayers full stop" support your contention that freedom of immigration is undesirable?

[mark_alec]

Even then, your nationality is just as morally arbitrary as your race.

I disagree. I care more about my family than someone else's. I care more about my friends than those who aren't. I care more about the people living in Melbourne than those who aren't...

I find this to be a natural way of thinking, the love you feel towards a fellow human is directly proportional to how well you know him/her, and how much impact he/she has on your life.

[Mao]

Even then, your nationality is just as morally arbitrary as your race.

I disagree. I care more about my family than someone else's. I care more about my friends than those who aren't. I care more about the people living in Melbourne than those who aren't...

I find this to be a natural way of thinking, the love you feel towards a fellow human is directly proportional to how well you know him/her, and how much impact he/she has on your life.

but does this validate why taxpayers money is better spent on a fellow citizen [make life more comfortable] more than a migrant [lifetime of difference]?

[brendan]

I find this to be a natural way of thinking, the love you feel towards a fellow human is directly proportional to how well you know him/her, and how much impact he/she has on your life.

It may be natural for you to care more about a white person than a black person, but does this mean that therefore when it comes to assessing the desirability of a particular policy, that we ought only to consider welfare of whites and not blacks?

[bubble sunglasses]

Even then, your nationality is just as morally arbitrary as your race.

I disagree. I care more about my family than someone else's. I care more about my friends than those who aren't. I care more about the people living in Melbourne than those who aren't...

I find this to be a natural way of thinking, the love you feel towards a fellow human is directly proportional to how well you know him/her, and how much impact he/she has on your life.

 
   well, as you know you'd be emotionally affected if something good or bad happened to a person you care about, you can empathise about how someone else feels when the same thing happens to one of their loved ones, wherever that someone else comes from

[costargh]

In 8 hours ive become a "racist idiot".

Hmm yeh. Maybe if you read my posts carefully enough you would have not come to that conclusion.

They most certainly can come. But doesn't mean I think their should be no cap for those people. We can't exactly have every person who wanted to live here. In an ideal world I'd love to have every single person living above the poverty line but thats not going to happen. If we let every unskilled or low-skilled person into Australia they would just be the same poverty-stricken people ...living in Australia.

I am all for unskilled or low-skilled migrants coming to Australia. But their has to be some sort of cap. We can help X about of people have a better life but we cant help X^2 amount of people. We will just have a poverty in Australia IMO

Thats where I end. Continue to call me a racist bastard but it doesnt really bother me. I know where I stand on this issue.
You can continue to direct arguments aginst what Ive written but you wont get a reply.
Not posting any more in this waste of space

[brendan]

I know where I stand on this issue.

We all do:

What about the welfare of non-Australians? Why not care about them? Why care only about those who are Australian? Why doesn't the welfare of non-Australians come into the equation?

Because I don't particularly give a shit about them?

[brendan]

you wont get a reply.

Yes because you know that however you reply to this question:

Thats the idea. But it will NEVER be the reality. Freedom of immigration will always affect Australian taxpayers full stop.

Then make up your mind, is it a good or a bad thing to allow one person to forcibly shift their cost of living onto another person through government?

that you are screwed.

If you answer "good", then your whole argument is complete nonsense and your conclusions just don't follow.

If you answer "bad", then it equally applies to one Australian forcibly leeching off another Australian, which you previously defended, so you contradict yourself.

So either way, your argument is either complete nonsense or contradictory. Take your pick.

[Mao]

In 8 hours ive become a "racist idiot".

Hmm yeh. Maybe if you read my posts carefully enough you would have not come to that conclusion.

They most certainly can come. But doesn't mean I think their should be no cap for those people. We can't exactly have every person who wanted to live here. In an ideal world I'd love to have every single person living above the poverty line but thats not going to happen. If we let every unskilled or low-skilled person into Australia they would just be the same poverty-stricken people ...living in Australia.

what makes this valid? wouldnt putting a ban on childbirth achieve the same thing?
both denies opportunities, what makes it better to deny opportunity of an outsider than a citizen?

and here you stand, saying you are not racist and calling me a "FUcken loser", it is your own double standard. If you really aren't racist, then the word "cap" wouldn't be used at all.

It is nice to go around under the banner of "i will try to help you", when you really "don't particularly give a shit about them"

[mark_alec]

but does this validate why taxpayers money is better spent on a fellow citizen [make life more comfortable] more than a migrant [lifetime of difference]?

Once a migrant is here, I don't differentiate them from a fellow citizen, I am just not for 'free migration' for anyone and everyone. Instead, I believe that there is a value such the the benefit to Australia and the benefit to the migrants is a maximum, somewhere between the two extremes of free migration and no migration.

And as for validating why taxpayers money is better spent on Australians, we pay tax to provide for services/infrastructure in our society, not others (doesn't mean some foreign aid is not important, but there is a balance as to how much should be given for maximum benefit to all parties involved.)

[brendan]

And as for validating why taxpayers money is better spent on Australians, we pay tax to provide for services/infrastructure in our society, not others.

You haven't provided any justifcation at all. All you did was just cited what is.

"We do currently do X, so therefore X is valid."

Why should my resources be confiscated to be then given to a total unemployed stranger in WA?

In any case why should definition of "society" be limited to only those that happen to be of Australian nationality?

If you can limit it to political borders, why not set the political border at the state level? Why isn't that more desirable?

"why taxpayers money is better spent on Australians"

If Australian taxpayers money is better spent on Australians rather than non Australians

Then Victorian taxpayers money is better spent on Victorians rather than non-Victorians.

Then Melbournian taxpayers money is better spent on Melbournians rather than non-Melbournians

Then my own money is better spent how i choose.

You can't have it both ways. This argument that immigration should be curtailed because poor people might come and go on welfare really reveals the hollowness of the standard rationales for the welfare state, "help the poor", "show some compassion towards the poor" etc.

It's hard to keep prating about how much you love "the poor" while insisting that the elderly Indonesian who wants to escape poverty and immigrate to Australia should be blocked.

It is ironic that the existence of welfare state is one of the main arguments used for undercutting the greatest anti-poverty tool the world has ever known: immigration.

Even then, there is a further consequence of using the existence of the welfare state torestrict immigration.

If you allow that, then it is also justified to restrict emigration of high income individuals.

[mark_alec]

In any case why should definition of "society" be limited to only those that happen to be of Australian nationality? If you can limit it to political borders, why not set the political border at the state level? Why isn't that more desirable?

To a degree that is done. The taxes that the states receive are put into the state. An example of something a state does for the benefit of her residents is the Channel Deepening project in Port Phillip. The Port of Melbourne Corporation wants to keep Australia's largest port here because it is best for Victorians.

Then my own money is better spent how i choose.

To a degree yes, which is why we do not have 100% taxation...

You can't have it both ways. This argument that immigration should be curtailed because poor people might come and go on welfare really reveals the hollowness of the standard rationales for the welfare state, "help the poor", "show some compassion towards the poor" etc.

Umm, have what two ways? I never said that immigration should be curtailed to stop poor people coming, I merely said that there is limit to the number of people we can absorb before we experience detrimental effects.

It's hard to keep prating about how much you love "the poor" while insisting that the elderly Indonesian who wants to escape poverty and immigrate to Australia should be blocked.

Once again, please tell me where I said that people should always be blocked.

[Mao]

You can't have it both ways. This argument that immigration should be curtailed because poor people might come and go on welfare really reveals the hollowness of the standard rationales for the welfare state, "help the poor", "show some compassion towards the poor" etc.

Umm, have what two ways? I never said that immigration should be curtailed to stop poor people coming, I merely said that there is limit to the number of people we can absorb before we experience detrimental effects.

It's hard to keep prating about how much you love "the poor" while insisting that the elderly Indonesian who wants to escape poverty and immigrate to Australia should be blocked.

Once again, please tell me where I said that people should always be blocked.

that is the point. is not putting a "cap" or "limit to the number of people" the same way as blocking?
what makes those that can come through more deserving than those who do not?