I have sympathies with both camps on this issue. I think that Australia has benefited,
Rhian,
Definitely yes however, in recent decades when intercontinental travel became literally too easy, travellers arrived unfiltered & ignorant & with unrealistic expectations & for the wrong reasons. When migrants came by sea the voyage provided opportunities to mingle & learn from fellow migrants which helped to form a much healthier mentality by the time they arrived at the lands they expected to give them a new life. They had the chance to adjust their expectations unlike with a fifteen hour flight where they arrived with an unchanged mindset & unenlightened unlike their predecessors. Just look how the migrants of yesteryear helped build Nations unlike the modern migrants who step off the plane with their hands held out & intentions of changing the land that took them in. In bygone years such changes were generally for the the better of all but lately have the opposite effect. Uncontrolled immigration facilitated by indifferent & agenda-driven immigration officers has created the deliberate causing of disunity here. Migration is supposedly to look for a better existence & building Nations not just running from responsibility & migrants demanding for the hosts to change & sacrifice their lifestyle !

What if their values are morally and ethically superior than that of the natives?
Yuyutsu,
That's why we need immigration officers working for Australia instead of immigration agents working for their Bank accounts !

Dear Indyvidual,

«That's why we need immigration officers working for Australia instead of immigration agents working for their Bank accounts !»

Had there been no immigration officers, immigration agents too would find themselves out of job!

Dear Yuyutsu

Thanks for the tip!

I think migrants have an obligation to respect the cultures and values of the societies they join for several reasons. One is that it is simply courtesy. Migrants are here by choice, and it is reasonable for a host community to expect those wanting to join it to abide by its rules. I wouldn’t join my local chess club and then insist that I would only play Scrabble.

Failing to integrate can cause social damage. Downer’s article points out that, in Europe, the tendency of some migrants to cluster in communities where they persist with their original language, religion, values and customs can provoke hostility, resentment and racism in other residents which in turn fuels alienation and grievance in the migrant community. This is harmful to both groups – for example in the way anger about migration has contributed to the rise in the far right in France.

More importantly, it prevents the gradual mutual integration described by Banjo. Diversity benefits society because migrants and host communities watch and learn from each other, copying the best bits and abandoning the worst. Food is a trivial but obvious example – “cultural appropriation” from migrants has greatly improved my dinnertimes!

There is also a communal dimension to this.

From a classical liberal perspective, migrants should be free to act according to their own customs and values except where this harms others, and I’d mostly accept this. But conservates like Scruton emphasise the importance of shared values, traditions and culture for a healthy and successful society, and I think he has a point. One of his last speeches was a fierce defence of western civilization:

http://theimaginativeconservative.org/2022/08/thing-called-civilization-roger-scruton-timeless.html

(yay, link!)

At the leftwing end of the collectivist ideological spectrum, identity politics insist that we are primarily defined by the ethnic, religious, gender etc categories we belong to. This underpins what I consider the worst manifestations of multiculturalism, which elevates and perpetuates conflict between groups and seeks to de-legitimise the prevailing culture in favour of perceived oppressed minorities.

Dear Banjo

I agree with much of what you say – cultures and values are constantly evolving and the various perspectives that migrants bring can contribute to that in many different ways, some positive and some not. I think in Australia the outcome has been overwhelmingly positive, but we may need some tweaks to keep it that way.

You are right, too, that “pure” race is a fallacy, and especially that those of us of British origins are mongrels with bits of Celt, Anglo-Saxon, Viking, Norman and other various European ancestry. Even the Celts were migrants who arrived in Britain in about 1,000 BCE.

Part of the problem is that there seem to be two concepts of “multiculturalism”, which I explore a bit in my response above to Yuyutsu. One is based broadly in individualism - respecting people’s rights to live, dress, worship, eat and believe as they please so long as exercising those rights does no harm to others, and celebrating the diversity this facilitates. The other is collectivist, based in identity politics which values people according to the categories they belong to – race, religion, gender etc – and then assigns greater legitimacy to groups perceived as oppressed. It is the latter I think that can be socially destructive

Dear Rhian,

Granted - people who wish to join a society need to respect its culture and values.

And no society is obliged to accept any people into its ranks, whether that be because they don't share its culture and values, or for any other reason whatsoever.

But do all migrants wish to join a society?

I, for one, did not. I came here because I wanted to live in this continent - I had no desire to join the Australian society (which I reluctantly had to put up with) and would have been more than happy to be left alone out in the bush.

Migrating birds too, have no desire to join a society, yet they arrive and nobody expects them to integrate - so what in the world allows you to treat humans worse than birds?

You elabourated and made good points regarding what in immigration benefits society and what does not, but as I see it, this is irrelevant because it is not our place to tell who may or may not enter this continent. We have every right to accept or not people into our society, but not into the land: I disagree with the notion as if any land is the exclusive property of a given society - and why would it?

Many societies can and already do live on the same land simultaneously - there is the human Australian society, but also societies of cats, societies of dogs, societies of kangaroos, societies of ants, etc. Why then should only one society of humans be allowed over this whole continent?

Did any human society create their land?
In my view, the land, any land, belongs to its Creator.

Scrabble player should not be admitted into a chess club, but the owner of the building may allow both chess and scrabble players to share their same games room.

While I share your feelings about collectivist ideologies, I cannot find a legitimate excuse to deny entry to the people who hold them, unless of course they pose a specific material threat.