> > > Oh, yeah, 'cause our laws all say "Only white rich people for immigrants, please".
> >
> > I think you'll find that the laws aren't worded that way but there probably is a significant bias in the system towards people fitting those categories - there is here anyway (not so much white as people from countries where there is a predominately white population). Note the "I think" bit means I could be wrong.
>
> I don't think you can substantiate that at all.
>
> What you might be able to substantiate is a bias toward accepting educated immigrants -- meaning that if you're a PhD, you'll have an easier time immigrating, although the uneducated do not have an impossible time of it. This mentality may seem unfair, but: (1) It makes sense. We can't accept all immigrants indiscriminately (owing to practical realities I should not have teach to an Australian), and so if you can't accept all immigrants, it merely makes sense to accept those most likely to make this country a stronger one; (2) Humanitarian concerns -- accepting immigrants fleeing untenable circumstances and who have nowhere else to go -- are not ignored. (3) Just about every country in the world has this kind of immigration bias, including Australia.
>
> In short, attacking the U.S. over its immigration laws, given our track record, is pretty ridiculous.

Err, I wasn't really attacking the US over its immigration laws - sorry if it came across that way. I do hold to the fact that they are biased towards those groups, but yeah, I didn't really mean that that was necessarily a bad thing, owing to the reasons given. However, for here at least the number taken on humanitarian grounds is really very tiny compared to the number of skilled immigrants. The main point I was trying to make anyway, was that here we have a shrinking or borderline population so we have ridiculous things like the minister telling the students of an all girls school to go forth and populate, while at the same time we focus on keeping as many people out as possible. Does this not strike you as ridiculous??
What I thought I was doing fairly clearly was attacking Australia's immigration policies and wondering if the US was similar.


> Is Bush a dangerous man? Darn right he is. The Al Qaeda and the Taliban found that out the hard way. How could anyone in charge of the strongest military in the world not be dangerous? We're a dangerous *country*. But what's bad about being dangerous unless you're dangerous to the wrong people? What counts is how we wield the power that makes us dangerous in the first place. Go bicker about that if you wish, but stop presuming that we act without thinking just because you are not personally privy to the thought processes behind our actions.

The fact that mixed up with the wrong people are a lot of not so wrong people.
Granted it may be a severe assumption to presume that he is a moron because he gives every appearance of it, but do you really think that your country _should_ be led by somebody with a below average or at most average intelligence? If your thought is that he doesn't matter in the slightest and he's only a figurehead and there's advisors to think his decisions through, then I suppose I can grant you that, but if you expect him to be bearing a lot of the decision power then wouldn't you rather have a highly intelligent person as president?


On the topic of Afghanistan - yes, I do agree that the Taliban being remived from power would have been a good thing some time ago. Correct me if I'm wrong though, but didn't the US have a moderate part in helping the Taliban some time ago because they thought they were a good anti communist buffer? And that the Taliban's opression wasn't an issue until the US was attacked.
At this point I'm wondering if I can sustain arguing that at the same time as feeling that a "strike them before they have the chance to strike us" policy is a bad thing. The answer: probably not. I think there is a thread of reason behind arguing both ways, but I'm not sure it's a good one.
I guess what bothers me about it is the fact that it's a "strike before they can strike us" rather than a "strike so as to end opressive regimes because the people there are suffering". But I think I'll go away and think on that some more.