Immigration Restrictions

[enwiabe]

I want you to think about Schroedinger's box-cat thought experiment. If you don't see my point, I'll elaborate for you, but I think you can arrive at this conclusion on your own.

[ninwa]

What then if X =
1/ government soldiers gang-raping your mother?

2/ systematic execution of Jews?

3/ stabbing someone in the back?

4/ stepping on someone's neck?

5/ throwing someone in jail?

Who then is willing to accept this rule? Not me.

BUT THIS IS NOT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE.

This is a DEBATE about immigration. A DEBATE. How many debators would stand up, say "I believe blah blah blah but the onus isn't on ME to give evidence so meh to you" and sits down again?

I've had to come to the conclusion that you simply have no evidence and are trying to avoid that by going on about onus.

[midas_touch]

This has become really entertaining, arguing about who should argue their point.

[brendan]

I'll elaborate for you,

go ahead.

[brendan]

I've had to come to the conclusion that you simply have no evidence and are trying to avoid that by going on about onus.

Actually i provided numerous arguments describing the logical consequences of accepting many of the arguments in favour of government restricting immigration. So you can come to any conclusion you like, but that doesn't mean your conclusion is true.

The debate is simple: The government is restricting immigration. Why?

MARK_ALEC GIVE EVIDENCE.

I gave my (rather poor) evidence relating to the lessening of resources available if we had an increase in population due to migrants.

That wasn't evidence, that was assertion and I showed that it is simply not true:

That is not at all how a nation's standard of living is determined. It has little to do with the amount of natural resources within some arbitrary political boundary.

Furthermore your argument assumes that Australians cannot utilize foreign resources, like foreign labour, foreign goods, foreign investment, etc.

What builds the wealth is your productivity, it is how well you utilize resources, and those resources don't even have to be your own, they could be someone else's resources, someone else's capital, someone else's labour, someone else's land.

[costargh]

The debate is simple: The government is restricting immigration. Why?

Thats not even a debate... we would then all be arguing differnt contentions for why the government is restricting immigration
ie. I'd be saying because they don't want the culture of Australia to change drastically
and you'd be saying, No because they are stealing our jobs.

The debate is : That immigrants should be able to freely move in and out of Australia

[brendan]

Thats not even a debate... we would then all be arguing differnt contentions for why the government is restricting immigration
ie. I'd be saying because they don't want the culture of Australia to change drastically
and you'd be saying, No because they are stealing our jobs.

1. i thought you weren't gonna post in this "waste of space"
2. That's the whole point, of course everyone has different views.

[ninwa]

Actually i provided numerous arguments describing the logical consequences of accepting many of the arguments in favour of government restricting immigration. So you can come to any conclusion you like, but that doesn't mean your conclusion is true.

Where's your evidence for the argument that restricting immigration is a bad thing? Figures, statistics, even anecdotes? In other arguments you have asked that other people provide evidence - now it's your turn.

[costargh]

2. That's the whole point, of course everyone has different views.

The point is, your definition of the debate is entirely wrong.

[brendan]

The government is restricting immigration. Why?

Some arguments already provided:

if we had 5 million people come here and apply for government handouts they would be getting very little individually but combined would be a burden on Australian taxpayers. Sudden influxes in migration (which would no doubt be a result of freedom of migration) would create bottlenecks in public infrastructure which in the short-medium term would cause dissatisfaction for Australian people as well as housing shortages (as if it isn't bad enough already) shortages in goods and services, causing inflation.

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?

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 we are more important.

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.)

It is not in our interests to force housing prices up by increasing our population dramatically through migration.

[costargh]

Don't you understand?

These arguments are against the idea "That immigrants should be able to freely move in and out of Australia"

Not, "The government is restricting immigration. Why?"

That isn't even a debate

I already know "what is". We know the government is restricting immigration. How does this constitute a debate?

Also interesting to note that in your little summary of this thread that only one side of the argument "That immigrants shouldn't be able to freely move in and out of Australia" has been brought forward. (besides Coblins ideas)

[brendan]

I already know "what is". We know the government is restricting immigration.

Yes we do, but why do it? Why should the government restrict immigration? What reason? What purpose?

[costargh]

I already know "what is". We know the government is restricting immigration.

Yes we do, but why do it? Why should the government restrict immigration? What reason? What purpose?

We really could do this all day couldn't we...

[brendan]

Also interesting to note that in your little summary of this thread that only one side of the argument "That immigrants shouldn't be able to freely move in and out of Australia" has been brought forward. (besides Coblins ideas)

It's not a summary of the whole thread its some arguments that have been provided for why the government should restrict immigration.

[costargh]

and what are the arguments that have been provided for why the government shouldnt restrict immigration?