Eagle, all Liberal MPs have free reign to voice their opinion. I welcome that, although that may not be the case in the Labor party.
It is, however just one man's opinion.
One with which I disagree:
There are billions of people living in poorer nations. The question is whether or not is it beneficial to the world as a whole for massive numbers of them to move to richer nations.
Syria alone has 10 million people seeking an escape from the rampant Islamic State violence which is the fault of Obama's unnecessary and premature withdrawal of troops from Iraq and the Middle East.
The UN have forecast that the population of Africa will increase by over a billion people in the next 35 year, the vast majority of whom will be born into poverty.
What happens to them?
Australia's policies of firm but fair border control are the template which the nation of Europe will, in time, both appreciate and adopt. Merkel is living on borrowed time unless her policies change. Can anybody seriously argue that allowing 800,000 non-German migrants per year is a viable policy?
That is 1% of the entire German population.
Per year.
99.9% of whom have never spoken a word of German in their lives. Chaos awaits.
Does every Syrian family happily living in Turkey for three years stick their kids on a boat in order to facilitate ease of access to Canadian dentistry?
Is the best thing for any country in the midst of a war for it's entrepreneurial class to get up and move to a different continent?
Once Syria is at peace, who will be left to re-build? The old? The sick? Will the millions in Germany get on a boat back across to start again?
Tony Abbott has an important role in this. That role is as the only world leader who has been able to regain control of a country's borders after they have been abandoned by the left-wing.
The policies which worked for Australia would work for Europe if they had the intelligence and gumption to take them up.
The UN is a disgrace and will never be a part of any solution. They should stick to attempting to control the weather and mis-calculating the number of trees by a few trillion. If it genuinely had any desire to solve the problem then the UN would insist that the oil-rich Middle Eastern countries opened their borders.
Syria is far closer, geographically and demographically, to Saudi Arabia and the emirates than they are to Germany, or Australia for that matter. The richest countries in the world per capita aren't willing to offer refuge to their religious brothers?
There will never be equality in global income. Some countries will be poor, some will be rich.
At a given moment in time.
That, however, changes. Empires ebb and flow.
Egyptians
Romans
Mayans
Aztecs
British
All have been incredibly powerful and then fallen apart (even you Pommies)
How would it have been if the rest of the world took off and landed at each of those because they happened to be rich at the time?
My heart is in Australia. We have had it good but there may be a time when we won't. If the country goes to wrack and ruin (i.e. two terms of Shorten) then me and mine will stay and tough it out.
If we get have a war with Indonesia (as Kevin Rudd predicted) then we will drive up and fight them on the Cable Beach Clubs.
By all means give refuge to those in peril.
Keep the safe, keep them strong.
That will allow them to go home and rebuild their country.
That is what Europe needs to learn and Tony Abbott is the guy to which they really need to listen.
