2025 RationalWiki 'Oregon Plan' Fundraiser

There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff—we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity.

Fighting pseudoscience isn't free.
We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $10, $20 or whatever you can today with PayPal Logo.png!
Donations so far: $8765.50Goal: $10000

Talk:One Nation

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Written by a moron[edit]

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. oʇɐʇoԀʇɐϽʎzznℲ (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)