|
No other Australian has a "right" to stop me allowing people to enter land I own, this is merely a state enforced violation of property. And vice versa. Australia at large cannot be told what to do with it's property by me. Strawman; you are being completely and blissfully ignorant of Arrow's impossibility theorem. A convenient assumption? The most given reasons for immigration controls are quarantine and security. Quarantine is baloney. This is why; most quarantine is doen by controlling areas of production. Futhermore, if procedures like irradiation, or technology like GE was allowed, most quarantine would be almost useless. Farmers are not allowed to use the apporpiate poison for fire ants. (Even though they do not have the entitlements to or the responsibility of ownership of their own property). The restrictions on science and land management are further violations of rights and are inefficient. Security is baloney too. Of the three Australians held for terrorist activities, all have been educated, upper middle class and residents. The logisitics of a dodgy Indo smuggler would be quite upsetting to well laid out terrorist plans. Anyway, targeting shady characters is more efficient and effective than blanket targeting of a group least likely to harbour terrorists. The 9/11 crew were resident students of the USA. I am sure a terrorist org could get around immigration if they tried. Foiled terrorist plots do not arise from stringent border checks but careful observance, intelligence gathering and well executed arrests. Border protection is not akin to security. Top those whos ay otherwise, did Tampa stop Bali? If your problem is access to welfare, then fine. It is a violation of property, inefficient, and if it were to be kept and made available only to citizens, it should be reformed anyway (NIT).
| 
