They say that the one thing predictable about the future is that we have no idea what lies in front of us. Nevertheless hunches are permissible. My hunch is that the days when we get dewy-eyed about Anzac, Don Bradman and the Man from Snowy River are numbered. We have an increasing number of people in this country who cannot relate at all to our cultural icons. For good or bad, driving the irreversible change is the global economy.

so we're going to import skilled workers, or, no- we're going to import grunt labor that will do work ozzies don't want. there are some breath taking holes in these propositions:

we get skilled workers by offering them higher pay than they could get in their native land. so the poor country supports the education, the rich country gets the benefit. is there no one in australia smart enough to do the work- if they were given access to education? this is capitalism in action: make others pay the costs of doing business.

then there's the other prospect: cheap labor doing work ozzies won't. there is no such work. there is work that ozzies will do if the wages are high enough, and wages will be high enough if the labor market is not inflated with imported people.

finally, this imported grunt labor is supposed to free all australians to be system analysts and brain surgeons. sorry, oz has the usual mix of capabilities in it's population. most will be at full stretch doing routine work. in a tight labor market, this routine work will be paid at a higher rate, allowing most ozzies to participate in a more nearly equal standard of living. i think that's a better way to live.

What about the workers we see clocking off for the last time on TV news because their unskilled/semiskilled jobs have gone overseas?

99% immigrants, who were brought here because there used to be jobs Australians did not want. Should we not see what we can do for them before we bring any more?

Most people losing jobs to overseas countries from now on will be immigrants. The next on the hit list is the car industry - heavily immigrant served.

I hate to think of the place where Lucy and her hero Legrain bury their heads to avoid reality.

healthwatcher: "We have an increasing number of people in this country who cannot relate at all to our cultural icons"

I totally disagree.

That statements flies in the face of the fact that the last few Anzac days have had damn high turnouts especially among the young.
Plus, overseas Anzac tour operators are getting higher numbers of Australian participants.
Plus, we're just as devoted to sporting icons and nationalistic sentiment seems to be higher than ever (if not somewhat aggressive in many cases).
While everybody seems to think Australian identity is being undermined, the shrill cries that hammer out at the slightest hint of being 'un-Australian' and the recent debates on Australan values would indicate otherwise. If anything, we're getting more nationalistic, not less.

As for knowledge of history and cultural issues, that's more an issue with a decline in standards than it is in national identity - and that's a debatable issue as well.

Leigh - Lucy and her hero legrain?

Perhaps you should look at the part where Lucy pretty much disagrees with Legrain's analysis, says he hasn't considered many of the issues and says that Legrain wasn't taking on board criticism, instead getting defensive.

Thanks for this article Lucy.

I can only say that I would have put it a whole lot stronger:

Legraine’s notion of completely open borders and everything else that he is on about is just as whacko as you can get. It deserves instant and complete dismissal.

I’ve got to wonder how this character managed to get his crazy message taken up by Australian media, or treated as a serious perspective worthy of debate by anyone!

Legrain could never get himself elected to any parliament anywhere. So why do we get so worked up about his extreme views?

Even the Greens want to restrict immigration (if only for environmental reasons).

Ironically, a completely 'porous' border would lead to the collapse of the democratic process. That is, democracy means little in countries with split ethnic, religious or cultural identities because everyone votes according to their 'tribe'. So, when the previous ethnic, religious or cultural majority is condemned to the status of a powerless minority by a larger group of politically assertive immigrants then chaos, conflict and bloodshed is bound to result.

Countries like the UAE understand this political reality and have therefore shunned democracy to protect their ethnic, religious and cultural heritage. Hence, despite the fact that Emeri Arabs currently make up only 19% of the population (the majority are from South Asia) they have kept the country stable and conflict free by maintaining their Federation of seven Absolute Monarchies.

So, if you want an open democratic society then keep the borders well maintained and well defined. It is also advisable to keep a vigorous and assertive ethnic, religious or cultural majority. It doesn't really matter which of those three categories come to the fore, as long as one does - otherwise chaos and civil conflict is almost inevitable.

Has anyone considered the huge skilled workforce available in Australia should immigration be markedly reduced? This workforce is currently engaged in building the infrastructure to cope with an increasing population. It is high time that per capita economic comparisons were done to show whether immigration provides a per capita benefit.

Lucy,

Excellant article. Phillipe Legrain seems to me to be a romanicist that does not consider the practicalities of what he is proposing. Bit like someone proposing we feed all the starving millions. Sounds good but not practical nor consideration given to ongoing problems.

I shudder to think of the problems of millions of people moving from country to country with no control. In short time the whole world would be one gigantic slum.

Someone forgot to give Legrain a brain

Fester, immigration has become a zero-sum game for most Australians. In terms of economic gains per capita, the benefits of high immigration are negligible.

Tom Gosling writes:

"So what’s in population growth for the average Australian? Nothing, except higher house prices and rents, more congested roads and transport, more pollution and waste, more apartment blocks, more crowds everywhere, more pressure on our parks and nature reserves - AND, of course, less water per capita.

If you don’t believe me, check out the Productivity Commission’s report of January 17, 2006, which showed Australians’ per capita income would be only 0.06 per cent higher if we had 50 per cent higher skilled immigration over the next 20 years.

Not only would there be negligible economic gain, but the Productivity Commission said there would obviously be environmental costs, but it could not take these into account because they are “externalities”, too difficult to count using conventional economic methods.

The costs mentioned, but not counted, by the Productivity Commission included air, river and ocean pollution, land degradation, increased use of natural resources, biodiversity loss, increased congestion of roads and public transport - and, of course, the increased water use that would result from higher immigration."

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=4154

As for Philippe Legrain, his pernicious delusions can be attributed to his own divided loyalties. He proclaims himself to be British, French, American and Estonian. His dismissive attitude towards national identity and the nation-state in general merely reflects his own lack of vested interest in any one particular country.

There is a complete, comprehensive solution to all of our immigration problems, which would eliminate detention centres, refugee quotas, and the like:

Bring back the Dictation Test.

Oligarch

From my perusal of the Productivity Commissions report,

http://www.pc.gov.au/study/migrationandpopulation/finalreport/index.html

I got the impression of a negative impact on both living standards and lifestyle. Studies on the impact of immigration in Canada are similarly inconclusive, but in contrast to Australia they have plenty of water.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_impact_of_immigration_to_Canada

Canada is similar to many western democracies in that anyone questioning the benefits of immigration seems to be branded as a racist.

Soooo.... we need more immigrants do we ?

WHO needs them?

http://melbourne.indymedia.org/news/2007/01/136574.php

MultiCulturalism and the Politics of Immigration

"Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau's proclamation of multiculturalism as official government policy in 1971 inaugurated a period in which immigrant communities in Canada have tended more often than not to give a preponderance of their votes to candidates of the federal Liberal Party"

Well golly gee.. for the life of me I would NEVER have seen 'that' coming :)

For 'market' read "Left wing political interests"

As with Australia and New Zealand, Canada's high immigration levels are providing the oxygen for multiculturalism. Without continued high immigration, multiculturalism would die the death it so deserves.

Many Western nations share the affliction of multiculturalism, but Anglosphere nations appear the worst affected.

Britain already has a questionable status as a nation. It won't take long for Australia to follow likewise if Phillipe Legrain has his way. If you value our nation, vote against immigration and free movement of labour across nations.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/04/21/nbyrne221.xml

"Immigration threat to Britain as single nation

24/04/2007

Immigration may be threatening Britain's status as a country, it has been claimed.

A pamphlet by social policy think-tank Civitas said the UK may already have reached a "tipping point" where it can no longer be regarded as a single nation.

David Conway, the author, said that if Britain has become a "nation of immigrants" it could lead to political disintegration."

online-east,
If only we could get to vote on immigration. It is just one of many issues where the polys ignor the view of electors, and this applys to both major parties.

Both major parties have high immigration policies so as to apease big busness, who donate large amounts to the parties. In view of the current water situation and the lack of infastructure, not even to mention our choking cities, we should be in a phase of zero net immigration.

We also should ask Howard and Rudd just what they and their parties believe to be the right population for Australia, so we can evaluate their answer pror to the election.

The last budget has seen further boost to immigration and we are still paying mothers to have babies. I personally think the polys are mad, but that is not new.

If a party like the Democrats came out against high immigration, I suspect their flagging electoral fortunes would instantaneously be reversed. As a nation, we are sleepwalking through what is likely the most profound change of our times. High immigration is fundamentally altering our nation, but Australians are not being consulted. In other parts of the world, such an unrelenting inflow of disparate peoples would be termed "re-colonisation". In Australia, it is referred to as "multiculturalism" and "diversity". We are told to accept it or else face ostracism.

Back in 1993, Bob Hawke confirmed that the major parties had indeed reached an implicit pact to keep immigration off the political agenda. The notion that Australians should not be allowed to discuss one of the biggest issues facing their nation simply demonstrates what an absolute sham our "democracy" has become.

I am heartened to read such tidy and succinct appraisals of the obvious problems associated with immigration. The question remains:

"Is there no one in the readership of OLO who has influence in the corridors of power"?

Why are we left with this festering sore of increasing population with no one to smack the Government between the eyes with reality. Please, if there is anyone out there who can be heard, let us who think and can see what is happening know what we can do to get this Albatros from around our neck so we can pass on this wonderful quality of life to our children.

If we do not reduce our population our quality of life and level of choice will disapear as surely as it has in Africa, India, China and the Middle East.

No question, a higher race of AUSSIEs in deeeep need of biologically inferior migrants as other whites must not apply - no point to become inferior non-Anglo rubbish in this part of English Commonwealth.

Treason. This is nothing but treason.

We are taking away a future from white Australian children so that third world peasants can take it from them. The immigrants earn more money than from where they come yet, they earn less here than we earn here ourselves. This is increasing the profits of big business. There is no lowering of the price of goods but an increase.

The 'Morning Bulletin' newspaper in Rockhampton, recently had a whole page of this kind of treasonous propaganda where a local meat works company where majority of the workers are imported. They refuse to employ the caucasians but a few. Those white Australian's that are employed, are forced to learn to speak in ethnic languages. More treason! Only the English language should be allowed to be spoken in the Australian workplace, enforcalbe by criminal law. No speak English, no job.

Our governments are forcing the small family owned fish trawling businesses out, then sell the licences to Asian companies. Peter Beattie did this by taking away the licencing, giving them instead, to Asian companies to fish in Queensland waters. More treason yet again.

Our politicians need to be made homeless. Australian's whinge and whine about this but refuse to act. Wake up! If you don't act, you can't expect to win.

There is a shortage of SKILLED labour not a LABOUR shortage. Theres a complete differnt. we DO NOT need un-skilled workers, all we need to do is use what we have.