Talk:One Nation

Written by a moron

It's just a silly hit-piece. Little to nothing is accurate and the reference on the page does not exist.

One Nation doesn't want to stop all immigration, just restrict it. It wants zero net immigration, which is not the same thing as zero immigration. This is clarified on their website; "anti-immigration" is not an accurate label for them.Schizophrenic (talk) 14:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Net zero immigration is almost entirely comparable to an immigration ban, given how small US out/in ratio is. FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 19:45, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

No, you're talking nonsense. The number of legal immigrants moving to Australia every year is 500,000, and the number of people leaving is 250,000 (Source). This means One Nation party has an immigration policy of allowing 250,000 immigrants a year to balance those leaving/arriving. How is that an immigration ban? As for the US: net immigration is running around 880,000 a year (http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2014/01/23/fewer-immigrants-came-to-u-s-last-year/ Source). This is not a small out/in ratio, small would be tens of thousands, not close to a million. Schizophrenic (talk) 21:53, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Isn't the larger point here that a party who wants to restrict immigration could still be called "anti-immigration"? I mean, an anti-pollution party wants to reduce pollution? You don't have to envision zero pollution to be called anti-pollution. Or am I missing something? That being said; the article needs sources and to not be a stub anymore. If that won't ever happen, somebody should prolly mark for deletion to see what the mob says. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 21:58, 7 August 2016 (UTC)