Should immigrants from high risk countries be banned from entering the country until the government improves its ability to screen out potential terrorists?

No, but increase background checks and screening of all immigrants

No, this will adversely affect refugees and asylum seekers

No, but also improve our ability to screen out potential terrorists

Place these immigrants in off-shore detention facilities (but they actually need to be comfortable and not violate basic rights) and screen them accordingly. The process needs to be streamlined for maximum of 6 - 12 months.

no, but increase background checks and screenings and only deport if proven to be dangerous or if unsure to keep an eye on them until they can be proven safe.

no, and don't accept non white immigrants

No, that is a violation of the UN charta

total banwe have too many now

total perinant ban on all of them

ban all immigration for 10years

Make sure to do very detailed background checks and if they are geniunley here to escape and start fresh and under no circumstance start anything bad or do anything bad be allowed in but if they are or have a history of behaviour then not let them come in

yes only if it is a safety threat

High risk countries? We're getting low now.

Stop all immigrants from high risk countries (legal or illegal). Not welcome.

Australia should only accept refugees from countries where the Australian government has had direct involvement.
For example, Australia should have done more to help and protect those who assisted the ADF in Afghanistan and protect them from reprisals from the Taliban.

Mixed on this one also. While I don't believe everyone from higher risk countries are a problem statistics don't lie. So I think there should be stricter screenings and even tests to make sure for one they don't commits serious crimes within our country. Secondly, that they are receptive to acclimating to our laws and culture. As if they simply follow their own laws and culture at the detriment of those actually living here would also be a no go. There are of course many other things to consider but ultimately I have no problem with them so long as they follow our laws, culture and don't commit crimes here. Better still if they work at fair award wages so the minimum wage does not get even worse.

All potential immigrants should be screened. However, allowing this process to drag out over literally YEARS and through successive governments is an intolerable denial of fair play, let alone justice.

yes, remain accepting immigrants however do a background check for the overall safety of the country.

Allow them to sign a contract where they will be given language lessons (not forced to change language, just learn, and give asylum seekers the right to work to cut tax burden, and learn to fend for themselves!

People from high risk countries should be allowed in if they are proved to be safe and unlikely to harm others.

Moratorium on ALL migration, especially legal migration (A far greater problem than the few arriving by boat)

As long as everyone is treated equally and Australians are not forgotten, I think it’s good to know that immigrants can make Australia home if it feels safe for them but as long as they are nice and work hard in the community and don’t become involved in crime

Immigration policy should be predicated on individualised risk assessment rather than categorical national origin exclusions. A robust screening framework should implement multi-factorial evaluation protocols that consider behavioral indicators, biographical verification, and values compatibility without resorting to broad geographic prohibitions. This approach requires procedural transparency to maintain both security efficacy and humanitarian principles.

Rather than binary acceptance/rejection criteria, a differentiated regulatory framework could establish tiered admissibility classification…  Read mores, where heightened risk factors trigger progressively more comprehensive vetting protocols without categorical denial. Such a system could incorporate variables such as intent verification, integration potential, and adherence to democratic values—metrics that transcend simple nationality-based determinations while still maintaining appropriate security standards.

No, just monitor immigrants who come from high risk countries instead. Arbitrarily stopping them from immigrating could have negative consequences.

They shouldn’t be banned just because some from their country are terrorists but the govt should investigate fully.

Yes, but an expedited screening process should exist for political refugees / genuine asylum seekers

No, but individuals should be subjected to a lengthy and thorough investigation before being allowed entrance.

Case by case only. If people are properly vetted and are clearly at risk in their own country, then absolutely we should give then asylum

Immigration should not be prevented on national origin, but on character and ideology. Immigrants might demonstrate a commitment to liberal values.

No, these immigrants may be fleeing from potentially life-threatening situations

No but only if they are given a strong security check and background check

No only if they get a strong background check and the police should seek out the people from the high risk country to see if there terrorists or not

To say they should be banned is an extreme response, but I do think a strong degree of caution should be exercised when vetting immigrants to prevent extremist activity such as the Lindt Cafe siege.

No. Greater vetting is require for immigration from those countries to identify potential refugees, or potential terrorists.

They should be allowed to live in a survallenced area, with proper living standards, without abuse or mistreatment.

Yes and No, because before placing the ban should do background checks to be entirely sure, as you don't want someone who potentially be a terrorist to enter - at the same time also don't want to incorrectly send an innocent person back to an unsafe country base on assumption alone either.

I think it depends I have friends who lived in Lebanon and spoke Arabic and people thought because of that they were Muslim and therefore a threat but they were Christians

Yes, but screening and asylum should still an option. High security and investigation

Only ban it if there has been a terrorist attack from that country in the last year.

No, and the belief that someone is a terrorist because of where they were born is outdated, but the government should still improve its ability to screen for terrorists regardless of where they're coming from.

Immigration needs to be stopped in general for the time being

We should improve identification of dangerous people and prevent them from posing dangers inside the country. Worrying about what others think of anti-terrorism policies is less important than whether they work and whether they meet core moral and socio-political standards.

Yes, as long as there are no racist generalisations of such countries

No, they should be instantly detained and deported

Yes, but also improve the government’s ability to screen out potential terrorists

Off shore processing with a main objective of humanity

No but they need to thoroughly screen before accepting even if it means delaying their arrival

No, but monitor immigrants to make sure they are not a hazard.

People seeking asylum should be allowed to enter the country, with strict border force security to screen for weapons and other indicators of terrorism.

No, just have more restrictions on them, like, a parol or smth.

No, but also improve our ability to screen out terrorists

Yes, I understand what countries do for their national security purposes, but in this regard, there should be no racist generalisations about such people.

Only men from these countries should be banned, not women a children.

No, but still improve our ability to screen out terrorists

No, but also invest in improving our ability to screen out potential terrorists

No, but the government should still improve its ability to screen out potential terrorists

No, but still improve the government’s ability to screen out potential terrorists

No, but also improve the governments ability to screen out potential terrorists

Yes, but there should be no racist generalisations.

No, but improve the government’s ability to screen out potential terrorists

Yes, I understand what countries do to protect national security, but there should be no racist generalisations about any such people.

Yes, but there should be no racist generalisations about such people from high-risk countries in the public image.

Yes, unless they can prove to ASIO that they have no links with terrorism or organised crime

Yes, but there should be no racist generalisations on people of such countries.

Yes, but there should be no racist generalisations about people from that country.

If the immigrants from the country are at a specific higher risk to our country, then yes, you can ban them. If not, then you should not ban them.

yes but provide safety, that be it either in out country or a close and safe country like papua new guinea

No, but everyone entering the country should have proof of a clean criminal record and pass a psych evaluation

Security and background check them and if they are safe then no if not then yes

No but put into a safe and secure area before known as potential terrorists

How many more of these questions will be Americanized - I sure with Australia

Make sure we raise security from high risk countries and have firm checks from them to make sure it’s safe for them to come here

It would be hard to determine if they have links to terrorism but maybe the government should invest in some ways to monitor those family/people.

Yes, but only if they went through a background check for criminal history.

Immigration should be stopped altogether until we solve the current housing crisis.

No, unless the migrant was a member of a known terrorist group.

How would your perspective change if you were the person trying to flee to safety but faced strict entry barriers?

What might be the emotional impact on communities if certain groups feel unfairly targeted by policies like these?

Is it fair or effective to assume people are risky based on the country they come from, or should each case be evaluated individually?

If you had to make a decision about who gets into a country, what factors would you think are most important to consider?

How do we balance protecting our country with being open and welcoming to people in need of help?

We don't need to erode out nation with trojans

Do you think national security concerns justify limiting the number of people entering a country, or are there better solutions?

How do you think fear of potential threats should balance with the need to offer safe refuge to people in danger?

Have you ever had an experience where you felt judged or excluded because of where you come from?

What are the risks of labeling entire groups of people as 'high risk' based on their nationality or race?

In what ways could a country's relationship with the rest of the world be impacted by implementing a policy like this?