European migration laws forces these people to conduct this dangerous voyage because you can’t get asylum without crossing the border.

Offshore resettlement programs exist in Europe and around the world. The problem is that there exists little incentive for people to remain in a refugee camp for what could be years when the option of travelling directly to their country of choice is an available option.

A solution is for countries to relocate all asylum seekers back to these refugee camps where they have no option but to wait with everyone else for resettlement. There would be no incentive to risk your life to cross a border if you’re just going to end up back in a refugee camp along with other people who are waiting.

Currently, in my country at least, there is an onshore humanitarian program and an offshore humanitarian program. Most of the people granted refugee visas in the offshore program are from war-torn countries like Afghanistan or Syria who escaped to a third country. The top five countries of origin for those that apply for onshore protection are from tourist destinations that haven’t seen war in decades. Hosting asylum seekers in UN refugee camps also helps prioritise those most in need.

I support policies that grant less temporary and permanent visas and restrict student visa and temporary graduate visa holders from applying for permanent residence. I fail to see how this ‘harms immigrants’. Adding and strengthening these caps is not harmful to immigrants. At worst, this is harmful to prospective non-existent immigrants. To study in Australia each and every student visa holder must make a declaration and provide supporting evidence that their intention is only to study and be a ‘genuine temporary entrant’.

The government already has caps on migration, but they have been actively loosening and removing caps over the past few years. I want them back, and I want them strengthened for the wellbeing of everyone in Australia, including permanent residents. People here don’t give a shit about the actual logistics and just have a hard-on for migration.

FFS, does anyone read? I think there should be fewer permanent visas granted, not that permanent residents shouldn’t be able to buy a home. You people just want to call someone racist. Not sure if there’s a word for that.

Who said anything about denying them the right to a home? I said Australia should grant less permanent visas not strip rights from existing permanent visa holders.

If you got ‘I hate immigrants’ from the content of my posts then you have shit reading comprehension.

Immigration improves lives for natural citizens. Look it up.

You’re the one making this claim, it is your responsibility to back it up, not mine.

What? Who said anything about denying them the right to a home? I said Australia should grant less permanent visas not strip rights from existing permanent visa holders. I am not sure you fully understand what permanent residency is; it’s hardly creating second-class citizens. Permanent residency is a transition towards citizenship or an alternative for those who wish to maintain their other citizenship (for countries that won’t allow dual citizenship). People who have never travelled to Australia in their life can be granted permanent residency, it makes no sense for these people to immediately be granted citizenship when they don’t even know if they like Australia.

My father was a permanent resident for over 30 years before he became a citizen and I honestly don’t think he ever experienced an issue.

The government should focus on improving existing Australians rather than making new Australians. Boosting migration during a housing crisis is irresponsible. It isn’t only permanent visas as well. The government is doing everything it can to increase the amount of people competing for housing in Australia.

Everyone who is leaving a house empty at this time should be penalised. This is just another nonsense move by the government that will have nil effect on the crisis they created.

Considering that the government is simultaneously boosting migration so that we’re granting 200,000 permanent visas every year I don’t see this as having any real positive effect. Permanent residents are exempt from this fee.

Edit: adding because I keep getting replies that assume I think I loathe permanent residents. The reason I stated they were exempt is to add context for those unaware. To be clear, and to stop annoying people with shit reading comprehension calling me racist, I think everyone regardless of migration status should be penalised for leaving empty houses.

I swear dumbarses like this live in a bubble. Who in their right mind would give their identity documents or bank cards to a porn site? If the UK government enacts this silly legislation it just means UK residents will use non-UK sites.

Some people really need a reality check.

I have never smoked in my life, but I am one hundred percent against the government deciding that I am not permitted to take up the habit should I choose. Seriously, fuck you. People framing the scrapping of this as being ‘right-wing’ clearly have no understanding of what the ‘right’ and the ‘left’ stand for.

Yeah, it’s much healthier to buy a packet of cigarettes from the g̶o̶v̶e̶r̶n̶m̶e̶n̶t̶ supermarket than buying those scary vapes.

That followed an alert on Tuesday by ProMED, a publicly available reporting system for emerging diseases and outbreaks, saying that hospitals in Beijing and elsewhere in China were “overwhelmed with sick children” amid outbreaks of pneumonia.

I would like to be told that, “You’re free to go, we’ve decided not to execute you”, then spend the next day joyfully celebrating on rides at Disneyland, followed by being shot in the head by a professional hitman without my knowledge. If I have to be executed, at least I can die happy… Shame about spraying my blood over all those kids at Disneyland though.

Sorry, didn’t read past ‘ethno-state’. Pretty clear where you were going from there. Nice talking with you.

As someone who stands mostly in the middle, I rarely comment on this issue because every second poster calls anyone that has even the mildest sympathy for Israel’s situation a Nazi.

You people are tiresome and it’s honestly not worth ‘debating’ with you.

Why would any child need to take out a bank loan anyway? I feel like this is an easy fix by setting an age limit.

I don’t care about prosecuting or criminalising in this case. There is already precedent for rehabilitation both voluntary, and in the case where a person’s safety is at risk, involuntary.

I don’t see why this could not be expanded to include the safety of an unborn child.

Noting specifically that I am talking about drug abuse where a woman intends to carry to term, not about locking women up to force them to give birth. I hate that I even have to clarify, but if experience had taught me anything, people on social media get positively orgasmic when they find something they can willfully misinterpret.

…it exposes the consequences of the “fetal personhood movement”, which seeks to legally define fertilized eggs, embryos and fetuses as people. The concept, enshrined in expanding anti-abortion laws, has led to increased surveillance and criminalization of pregnant people, with women punished for the outcomes of their pregnancies or other actions that police claim endangered their fetuses.

The way the detention staff acted in this is frankly disgusting. That being said, I don’t think it is entirely fair to equate Alabama’s frankly stupid abortion legislation with assigning a certain level of rights to a foetus. If a mother intends to carry to full term and is using drugs, I don’t think it is fair to the foetus-soon-to-be-person to ignore this.

Who here would like to try and explain to a victim of foetal alcohol syndrome or prenatal opioid exposure that their suffering is morally acceptable because their mother had the right to choose?

It doesn’t always need to be one extreme or another, there is a middle ground.

Yeah, I’ve said enough. Not wasting my time on this nonsense any more. Feel free to read my other comments if you want some counter-arguments to your ‘points’. You haven’t said anything particularly original (apart from your strange belief that ‘enshrining’ must have a religious basis, which doesn’t warrant a response).

it requires a power dynamic to be in play

Tell that to every major dictionary.

You using an out-of-whack definition of the word that almost no one outside of the liberal-arts agrees with is not me being ‘misled’. Language is owned by the masses.

race ‘cultural group’