Perhaps as David concludes, on the one hand there are nice people in the world (who support open migration), but on the other hand there are nasty people (who don't).

There are close to forty million refugees in the world. There are probably hundreds of millions of other people who wouldn't mind migrating somewhere else if they could: Tahiti always looks nice. If we took half a million of each per year, we could happily fill Australia's empty spaces for the next hundred years, and hardly put a dent in those totals.

I have no quarrel with an increased refugee intake, and on the basis of dire need. I don't think we would have any trouble finding half a million per year to take out of the refugee queue who are in dire need. An increased refugee intake would boost employment by requiring far more TAFE and TESL teachers, more social workers, building workers, etc.

Why didn't someone think of this before ?

Joe

byork
It is meaningless to define A to include not-A. It is confused to use definitions that do not distinguish what is in issue. It is meaningless to define capitalism by "country", because it depends on who has ownership or control of the means of production. To the extent it's private, it's capitalist, and to the extent it's governmental, it's socialist. A "country" is no more socialist or capitalist than the world is. You are merely confused by your misuse of collectivist concepts. Your point, if conceded, would merely mean your argument is unfalsifiable.

My point is only that most popular resistance to immigration is because people apprehend - probably corfectly - that the services supplied by government wouldn't be able to cope. But that is not an argument against people, it's an argument against government's meat-axe approach to rationalising scarcity.

The biggest barriers to immigration are socialist - social security, socialised medicine, socialised infrastructure, miniumum wage laws.
Like the White Australia Policy - one of the first acts of the Labor party - or like the latter day green/left Malthusians and their view of people as bacteria or noxious pests - it is socialism that regards people as the problem *because* is incapable of economic calculation. If you can match supply with demand the supposed problem disappears.

The very purpose of immigration barriers is to restrict freedom of movement, i.e. to restrict private ownership and control of the means of production. Precisely *because* people are motivated by profit, without coercive state intervention, they will freely move and trade between nations.

BTW you still have not rescued McMullen from the disgraceful blunder on which both he and you have relied, nor been able to defend your assertion that socialism - of all things - is necessary to maintain capitalism, a real good horse-laugh to that!

Peter Hume, socialism (as the word implies) is the social ownership of means of production - capitalism is the opposite, the private ownership of the means of production. You really shouldn't laugh at people or call them 'fools' when you actually believe that a welfare state and big government spending somehow alter the private ownership of the means of production.

Socialism is more likely to provide unprecedented opportunities for people, in whatever numbers, to be productive members of society because production would be freed from the private profit motive and could be geared to social need (and fun and fantasy - this is the C21st after all).

I share your attitude to the reactionary Greens and neo-Malthusians. The Australian Labor Party has lots to be embarrassed about, and ashamed of, for its support for the White Australia policy from 1901 to 1966 (when Whitlam replaced Calwell with a more progressive policy). And so too the trade union leaders of that era (and some still today).

You may like to reflect on the fact that it was the communists within the labor movement who opposed the White Australia policy. And, just as a matter of accuracy, it was under Barton that the Immigration Restriction Act was passed, not under Labor. Barton was a Protectionist - the only two members of our first federal parliament to have the courage and prinicples to oppose the Act were both Free Traders. What next Peter Hume, will you be denying that Karl Marx supported free trade?!

You know the debate goes down a rung when people start using terms like "nice" people or "nasty" people. Niceness is not always about taking the PC or populist approach if the outcomes will be devastating for human beings. Nice people don't do that. It is a lost argument either way. Human beings will disagree about what works best and sitting on either a Left or Right perspective does not automatically denote level of "caring".

It is about carrying capacity? Many believe Australia cannot support a continual movement of people (we are talking millions) while continuing to boost birth rates (eg. Costello's two for replacement and one for the country). There is a difference between taking on more refugees in the immigration quota and opening the doors to massive and unrestricted intakes.

Where do you think most of the world's populations will end up with open borders? China cannot handle the billions of people it supports, do you really think we can do better given we provide far more in the way of social support and infrastructure.

Having a rethink about foreign policy and our impact on the developing world is the place to start. For example, it would be better using trade sanctions against dictatorial regimes and adopting a no-tolerance policy on human rights. But no, instead we overlook it (until it doesn't suit) to trade with those nations; and the effects of supporting those corrrupt regimes are overlooked.

Nations should be self-interested in terms of domestic policies - they are elected to represent - but that self interest should not override morality issues in relation to the impact of that activity on the developing world.

I think that human history would have been immeasurably better had all the self righteous feudal sculptors of humanity instead chosen to tend worms.

Dear dear Byork :)

You say:

//Socialism is more likely to provide unprecedented opportunities for people, in whatever numbers, to be productive members of society because production would be freed from the private profit motive and could be geared to social need (and fun and fantasy - this is the C21st after all).//

Ummmmmm 'no'. What socialism 'the reality' produces is a ruling elite of very rich 'proletariat' and very big population of 'workers' who are all now equally broke and miserable.

You must be very young and still idealistic ? Have you not yet recognized that "All have, do, and will continue ..to sin" ?

Human nature is driven by 3 things

-Self preservation.
-Self propogation.
-Self gratification.

or combinations of all 3. All natural human behavior can be resolved into those. It takes divine intervention and the experience related by Paul "I am crucified with Christ, it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me" Gal 2:20 I know...IIII know... it sounds like religious gobbledygook.. but it is more a reality than the idea that utopia will suddenly reign when 'the workers' own the means of production.

The 'workers' need leaders... those leaders do verrrrry well for themselves once they have power. You are back to simply an atheistic monarchy.

Capitalism also doesn't produce utopia. But a society based on Godly values comes closest. Capitalism does not mean there cannot be a good social program. It means keep the jolly government OUT of our faces unless absolutely neccessary.