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 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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

We don't need to erode out nation with trojans

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

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

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

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

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