Excessive immigration is bad. I'm sure you wouldn't want half of Africa to move to Europe tomorrow.

Medicine can be bad. Consider algal blossoms. When given excess nutrients, they will thrive but then quickly die off thereafter. Also consider wild animal population control. We prevent animals from overpopulating, as is occurring in Africa, because there are insufficient resources to sustain them and more suffering ensues.

I agree with fiedler 100%.

spyman, wjessop is a follower of Marx, who expounded a global revolution of the proletariat. Communists want to live in a world without borders under the friendly Big Brother.

@spyman
Maybe you don't understand this - Immigration is (ought to be) decided on your skills, not what country you're from. This deal specifically says "if you are from these countries, but only these white commonwealth countries, you can have access to our country" without any sort of skill barrier or anything. There is a DIFFERENCE between immigration policy and this deal, stop comparing the two (although immigration probably has its own problems).

There is alot of brand new real estate opening up in the lands near Mosul, Tikkrit and Damascus.

If you're all so fond of immigration and closed borders like you say you are, you should be rejecting the idea of this deal.

Their opening of borders is to celebrate their common cultural ties. These ties don't exist with other, especially African, countries. Moreover, they know that there will be no mass immigration from this deal. It is only a signal of friendship. If UK opened borders to African countries, half of Africans would leave the continent. I don't get what's so difficult for you to understand.

Once again, allowing for countries that are very similar to have easier access isn't racist. It's not "let's let all the white countries in on this because lol blacks". If that was the case the US would be in this group. These four are very similar in terms of politics and economics. (And I think society?)
Saying this is unfair is like saying it's unfair for Ontario to allow people from the province of Alberta in because it's not fair to Chinese people that could get to Ontario.

Fiedler - if only we could keep you lot out of Bondi - everything would be rosy.

"Maybe you don't understand this - Immigration is (ought to be) decided on your skills, not what country you're from."

So you are in favour of discrimination, just skills based discrimination? (I don't mean discrimination in a pejorative sense).

Immigration is and should be based on whatever is deemed to be in the best interests of the country in question. Skills is an important factor to consider but it is not the only factor.

Other in factors include familial ties, financial investment (the immigrant might make a substantial investment in their new country), cultural fit, humanitarian reasons and foreign relations (one country may make a deal with another country).

Then there is also the question of reciprocity. For example, lots of Australian's would like to go to Canada, and lots of Canadians would like to come to Australia. Potentially it is in the best interests of both countries to make a deal that works for the citizens of both countries. This fits in with the primary objective "Immigration is and should be based on whatever is deemed to be of the best interests of the country in question".

What does a farmer living near a Montreal suburb have in common with a Maori band leader?

"Common cultural ties" are fabricated nonsense. Sure, they are the "reason" that this deal is existing, but its total trash - I'm not denying what you're saying, only that it has racist undertones. Which you do not seem to see for some reason. To be honest I like the deal, I think open borders are a wonderful thing and I'd like to see our world go more towards this direction. Do I think its regrettable that its only four commonwealth countries? Obviously, but I think its a start. It just doesn't make me blind to the fact that these things are often racist.

Spyman - just because someone wants part of what we have in Australia does in no way mean we have to give in to them.
A desire to restrict immigration is not automatically racist you numpty.

Wutsi are you sure you directed that post at the right person? I think you might mean DemonOverlord. Please re-read the posts.

Wutsi, also note that sometimes when I reply to a post, I quote that post before adding my own comment. That might be the source of your confusion.

If you are curious about an Artist Context point of view on this. A study was olnce conducted among members of a tribe in Kenya, and a group of villagers in iceland. Two completely different biomes, and cultural locations.

Both core groups displayed an interest out of a spread of dozens of peices of art, ranging from abstract, realistic, and non - representional, they reached the same conclusions in both core groups.

All human beings regardless of cultural identity prefer artwork with cool sublime colors predominantly blues and greens.

They prefer a landscape with a view, a vista overlooking an area with a river. As it is anthropologically a human trait to desire freshwater, a place to explore, hunt and live off of the land.

Truly regardless of any country you come from, all places and people crave artwork that mirrors their cravings in life as well. The tribal people in Kenya were living life in areas where a landscape with water to them was a dream perhaps.

For the people in the village in iceland, water was likely an everyday thing. But regardless of having that resource, both core groups understood the importance of life with a view, a life close to water, and cool calming colors to relax the spirit.

All these countries, to my knowledge, have rather tight immigration policies. My first thought was that this was the reason they wouldn't want to check everyone moving through one of these countries again and the countries don't have that much native troublemakers either, so it's quite safe as well as economically beneficial.

That's my reasoning through common sense. In this case, I see no particular reason why race or 'cultural ties' would change the equation.

Demon, you seem to think immigration is a right. It is not. Countries only allow those who can benefit the country in some way to immigrate, rightfully so.

brainbomb's study further demonstrates the impracticality. Everyone wants to live close to water and get out of the Saharan Desert. That is why seaside homes are so expensive. However, there simply aren't enough Icelands to accommodate those who want to live in Iceland.

LOL "I think countries doing their immigration policy on just skills base is discriminatory but here's a list of all the other reasons why I think a country should be discriminatory, but look at DemonOverlord, she's definitely the discriminatory one"

I didn't say I endorsed the immigration system, I even said I found problems with it. And there are tons of problems with what you said there too, spyman... I just can't engage in this conservative circle jerk anymore.

What Steephie mentions is true as well. Just look at the sexual assault cases from Syrian "refugees".

Fortunately, CANZUK is not a thing.

Personally if it were up to me I would an additional criterium for immigrants. Do you play Diplomacy? If yes, automatic entry to Australia should be granted. In the long term this will make it much easier to organise face-to-face games, which, for my perspective would be a great benefit.

spyman was saying that skill shouldn't be the only variable to discriminate against. Culture and language are important too.

I'm pretty sure we shouldn't be letting those lying scums of diplomacy players immigrate to Australia. We could have less of those politician types.

DemonOverlord wrote:
LOL "I think countries doing their immigration policy on just skills base is discriminatory but here's a list of all the other reasons why I think a country should be discriminatory, but look at DemonOverlord, she's definitely the discriminatory one"

What a bizarre comment! What has any of that got to do with what I wrote? I even said that I did not mean "discriminate' in a pejorative sense.

"And there are tons of problems with what you said there too, spyman... I just can't engage in this conservative circle jerk anymore."

That's okay DemonOverlord if the best you can come with is "racism is bad, m'kay" we can leave it that.

I am curious though to know what problem you had with what I wrote, but if you don't want to tell me that is your choice.

Before you go though do you disagree with this proposition:

"Immigration is and should be based on whatever is deemed to be in the best interests of the country in question."

You don't even have to give reason. Just tell me if you agree or disagree.

I think immigration should be abolished and we should all live in one, big, Marxist, happy world without borders, racism and discrimination ;)

DemonOverlord - would you be happy to participate if it is an exclusively Left wing circle jerk?
Not that Left or Right necessarily has a bearing on the discussion at all.

Oh, I don't know. I think spyman's "best interests" stance leans right.

"Oh, I don't know. I think spyman's "best interests" stance leans right."

Based on what? Anything in this thread? Can can you quote something that I wrote that you thought was right-wing. If you disagree what was it you disagreed with?

The extreme left wing wants to erase the concept of countries and sees anyone who thinks otherwise as right-wing nuts.

Every discussion about politics will involve personal ideology, so of course it has a bearing on the topic.