• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Unrestricted Immigration

Kirran

Premium Member
You should more read about kangaroos before comparing them with vermin like foxes and rabbits. Non Methane producing, low fat, low cholesterol, high protein, soft feet, do not eat plants to ground like sheep and goats destroying the plant meristem, massively less erosion, rapid population increase after drought breaks, disease free, hardy, delicious.

Much of this makes them sound like very good competitors, likely to thrive in certain areas of Africa, outcompeting some antelope species, depriving top predators of food sources, changing the floral makeup of the savannah ecosystem and leading to environmental collapse.

Education is occurring especially with mobile phones color TVs and internet which seem to infiltrate even the poorest nations. The main inhibition to progress are local regressive particularly islamic religious traditions which are often antagonistic to raising the standand of living. eg Boko Haram

All true, these are helpful tools, and no, Boko Haram doesn't help anything.
 

Tiapan

Grumpy Old Man
Yes I know what you mean. some idiot brought cattle, goats, pigs, horses, camels, cats, dogs, rabbits, and bloody sheep to Australia, but kangaroos have their own niche and seem to thrive any way. Compared to the damage the ubiquitous goat causes in erosion and denuding the landscape, Kangaroos are guaranteed to cause far less problems and solve a major starvation issue.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Yes I know what you mean. some idiot brought cattle, goats, pigs, horses, camels, cats, dogs, rabbits, and bloody sheep to Australia, but kangaroos have their own niche and seem to thrive any way. Compared to the damage the ubiquitous goat causes in erosion and denuding the landscape, Kangaroos are guaranteed to cause far less problems and solve a major starvation issue.

Is this referring to goats in Australia or in Africa?

In either case, 'guaranteed' isn't really a term we can use in ecology.
 

Tiapan

Grumpy Old Man
Goats anywhere, in fact all hoofed animals are terrible for the environment and ruminants produce lots of methane. My suggestion was of a simple straight forward practical nature, where the risk of environmental disaster is in the very low probability realm. However if it is better for the earth if the humans starve then so be it.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Goats anywhere, in fact all hoofed animals are terrible for the environment and ruminants produce lots of methane. My suggestion was of a simple straight forward practical nature, where the risk of environmental disaster is in the very low probability realm. However if it is better for the earth if the humans starve then so be it.

But risking environmental disaster isn't really helpful for anybody.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
As to the topic of the title, are you for or against unrestricted immigration?
Can you give reasons as to why?

Against it. If someone provides a useful skill I welcome them as they contribute to the nation. This is the policy in my nation which I agree with.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Against it. If someone provides a useful skill I welcome them as they contribute to the nation. This is the policy in my nation which I agree with.

But if they haven't had the chance at gaining a good education, leave them out in the cold?
 

Shad

Veteran Member
But if they haven't had the chance at gaining a good education, leave them out in the cold?

Why should my nation feed the masses of other nations? Why should my nation educated the masses of other nations? There is a difference between providing aid for another nation, which I support, and taking in everyone from that nation into my own. Never mind other nations which are considered poor. Should every nation with a public school system be obligated to teach people from other nations which lack or have an ineffective system?

Sounds like you feel like the poor are entitled to support from anyone they please rather than just their own nations. What does an unskilled foreign labour provide that a unskilled citizen does not? What if the unskilled labour is granted an education but fails? Should we then deport then for not passing? Should a nation be obligated to provide for such people for the rest of their lives?
 
Last edited:

Kirran

Premium Member
Why should my nation feed the masses of other nations? Why should my nation educated the masses of other nations? There is a difference between providing aid for another nation, which I support, and taking in everyone from that nation into my own. Never mind other nations which are considered poor. Sounds like you feel like the poor are entitled to support from anyone they please rather than just their own nations.

People who are better-off should help people who are worse-off, is what I believe. Not only under the proviso that they're from the same country.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
People who are better-off should help people who are worse-off, is what I believe. Not only under the proviso that they're from the same country.

Yes people should, I do not disagree with that. However a nation is not a person nor does a nation hold the same standards as people. Hence why charity and aid are options for people. Unrestricted immigration for the poor does nothing but shift the burden from one nation to another. How much can a tax-base burden social costs of a people that may contribute nothing to the new host nation? How long before the public school system collapses due to lack of funding since an increasing portion of the population provides no taxes but still receives the benefits taxpayers have. When a population doubles? Triples? What about housing? What about work?
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Yes people should, I do not disagree with that. However a nation is not a person nor does a nation hold the same standards as people. Hence why charity and aid are options for people. Unrestricted immigration for the poor does nothing but shift the burden from one nation to another.

I think migration of people to better-off regions can lower suffering overall, so I'm in favour of it.
 

Shad

Veteran Member
I think migration of people to better-off regions can lower suffering overall, so I'm in favour of it.

Only if you do not overburden existing "better-off" regions. Hence why I am in favor of restricted immigration in which one can contribute to the host society not "could" or "maybe". Depending on the nation current social costs are already run significant portion of the funds a nation has available. More so many of these "better-off" region are massively in debt. Take a look at America for example. It already spends well beyond what the tax-base provides. This is how easily the facade of "better-off" can misled. Where is the funding for increased social support going to come from? Keep in mind a number of these "better-off" nations balance their national budge worse than I did on an allowence of 5 dollar a week when I was a 5 year old.
 

Tiapan

Grumpy Old Man
Australia had a policy that if you reach our territory you were assessed for refugee status this led to a huge problem of a literal flood of "illegal boat people". Several hundeds died in leaky boats forced to sea by wealth driven evil greedy people smugglers who charged their victims $1000's taking rabid advantage, abusing Australia's open kindness. These smugglers are simply murderers.

I am human and feel strongly for these poor people, but the issue is, is it better to be alive or dead?

I am not particularly enamored with our present conservative government, but one thing they have done is stop these boat people.

How?

Against all the morals of modern society we introduced concentration camps eg Manus Island, where all boat people, men, women, children, old and young, sick and healthy are incarcerated indefinitely. A severe curtailing of their human rights and a horrible place.
see latest UN report
Asylum seekers, refugees and human rights - Snapshot Report | Australian Human Rights Commission
"Australia maintains one of the most restrictive immigration detention systems in the world. It is mandatory, not time limited, and people are not able to challenge the need for their detention in a court of law. The Commission has for many years called for an end to this system because it leads to breaches of human rights obligations under treaties to which Australia is a party."

However the effect of this policy is that it has STOPPED the boat people and smugglers dead in their tracks. So at the cost of an unfortunate several hundred refugees incarceration and denial of human rights, we have in fact has SAVED literally hundreds of lives.

501511-crash.jpg

Refugee boat arrives at Christmas Island 2010 hits rocks in heavy seas

842937-christmas-island.jpg

Half hour later boat destroyed with the loss of 50 lives

Irregular Boat Refugee Drownings by Year
2009 171
2010 71
2011 330
2012 242
2013 217
Mandatory detention implemented
2014 4
2015 0

Sometimes you have to be CRUEL to be KIND.

I would suggest Europe look closely at our example if they actually want to save lives. Mass immigration from Africa and the Middle East to Europe will destroy the european economy and cause a massive drop in standard of living, this is simple economics. Also the rate of assimilation is at breaking point, see rise of right wing parties, due to saturation, so mass violence will follow and erupt more frequently.

The real issue is in addressing the despotic, particularly Islamic, regimes, these people are escaping from, with education and aid, so the need to escape is diminished. As the West we need a concerted effort to raise the standard of living of the third world through education using the internet and mobile phones, which have penetrated even the poorest nations. Raising the standard of living reduces the need for large families as more of the children survive, so population pressure reduces.

Of course it is a complex problem. When the West goes in to help we are branded invaders, polio workers trying to save the lives of millions of children are murdered because ONE doctor was rumored to have been involved in Bin Ladens execution (something I agree with), hospitals blown up and the rise of neanderthal feudal tribal warlords flourish under a tyranny of murder. It is about time the Middle East and African nations stood up for themselves and dealt with own problems instead of blaming and demanding the West rescue them. The west escaped the religious theocracies a century or so back and has blossomed since turning secular, gaining a massive rise in its standard of living. It will take time and many poor souls will suffer and die but that is the nature of the human condition.

Cheers
 
Last edited:

Kirran

Premium Member
Certainly some very interesting points made.

But I think that these people should just be let in. Yes, the smugglers are a scourge on the Earth, but I don't think that they should stop people from allowing immigrants in. Australia could work in co-operation with the Filipino, Indonesian etc governments to put a stop to it instead.
 

Tiapan

Grumpy Old Man
Certainly some very interesting points made.

But I think that these people should just be let in. Yes, the smugglers are a scourge on the Earth, but I don't think that they should stop people from allowing immigrants in. Australia could work in co-operation with the Filipino, Indonesian etc governments to put a stop to it instead.

Perhaps we should send a fleet of jumbo jets to pick all 45 million of them up and build new cities and dams and nuclear power plants to shelter and feed them.

Unfortunately only Australia and the Philippines are signatories to the UN Refugee Treaty while other countries, particularly Malaysia and Indonesia both Islamic states, are NOT signatories to the Treaty, and treat refugees poorly.

UNHCR - States Parties to the 1951 Convention and its 1967 Protocol


Perhaps you could ask them to sign. Some in these countries see the people smugglers as genuine businesses getting rid of a growing number of troublesome refugees.

Asylum seekers in Indonesia: why do they get on boats?

It is ironic that these refugees, who are mostly Muslims pass through two Islamic countries but want to come all the way to Westernised Australia, to me they are not refugees from terror because they could stay in either Malaysia or Indonesia which are are far more suited to their culture. So anyone who proceeds to Australia is usually an economic refugee just looking for a better life rather than escaping persecution.
 
Last edited:

Kirran

Premium Member
I think it is a very difficult one, and I would of course want Malaysia and Indonesia to sign this.

I think you're simplifying this issue, as far as your final points go. People in Malaysia and Indonesia who don't have much money, don't have work, can't find employment, are at risk of starvation, disease etc all the time. Often stuck in slums, their kids are in dangerous conditions and so on. My uncle moved out to Malaysia, due to our family having some connections there, and has a child there. He (my uncle) is heavily involved in work related to the welfare of refugees and immigrants in Malaysia, many of whom are in awful conditions. Poor Malays, let alone other Malaysians, are in similar situations. So damn right they want a better life.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Perhaps we should send a fleet of jumbo jets to pick all 45 million of them up and build new cities and dams and nuclear power plants to shelter and feed them.

Just saw this. Well, 45 million probably wouldn't come. But aside from that, yeah, do that.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
As to the topic of the title, are you for or against unrestricted immigration?
Can you give reasons as to why?
Is anyone in favor of unrestricted immigration? I mean, things like communicable diseases, violent criminal records, history of affiliations with terrorism, etc. should certainly put restrictions on a person's ability to emigrate to the United States.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Is anyone in favor of unrestricted immigration? I mean, things like communicable diseases, violent criminal records, history of affiliations with terrorism, etc. should certainly put restrictions on a person's ability to emigrate to the United States.

A very tangential question, but do you think the USA should offer asylum to the unconvicted people who'll be let out of Guantanamo if they have somewhere to go? Uruguay's accepted seven.
 

leibowde84

Veteran Member
A very tangential question, but do you think the USA should offer asylum to the unconvicted people who'll be let out of Guantanamo if they have somewhere to go? Uruguay's accepted seven.
That would depend. If they had any communication with terrorists or show any animocity towards the US, then no. But, if they were being held for absolutely no reason, we kind of owe them that much.
 
Top