Multiculturalists support a non-discriminatory policy on the idealist presumption of "equality".

A noble sentiment, but impractical in the real world, where there are vast discrepancies in socioeconomic development throughout the world.

A "non-racist" policy may inadvertently promote other prejudices, as less "developed" populations are more likely to be sexist, homophobic, religiously intolerant, unsympathetic to the disabled, etc.

The "generous" multiculturalists see the West as some infinite cornucopia.

But our recent prosperity is an historical aberration.
Only a few generations ago, every Western city had slums filled with paupers.

Our living standards are a semi-illusion, since many need state-funded assistance (welfare, schools, hospitals, housing, etc).

In Australia, we have 100,000 homeless, 700,000 unemployed and millions who use those state-funded services.

We should be able to solve all these internal inadequacies before we can claim true prosperity and open our doors to others.

Our immigration policy should pose no detriment to our socioeconomic status.

I propose a gradualist policy, based on Human Development Index classifications.

There are 4 levels in the Index: Very High (what we would call "First World" countries), High, Medium and Low.

Ideally, we would want most immigrants from the Very High category, perhaps some High, and little if any Medium and Low.

Of the 1.8 million immigrants in the last decade, only 31% were from "Very High" development countries.

I cannot cite a reference, as I had to make my own calculations, using the government's statistics.
http://www.immi.gov.au/settlement/srf/

12% were "High", making the "High-Very High" total 43%.
Ideally, this should be 100%.

Almost half (46%) were from "Medium" level, particularly India and China.

Another 11% were "Low", making the "Low-Medium" total 57%.
Ideally, this should be zero.

Initially, there would be a bias towards White populations, but not because of "race".
No doubt the anti-racists will still scream and stomp their feet.

At some point in the future, (hopefully) all countries will have Very High development, at which point no exclusions will be necessary.
But this could take centuries, possibly millennia.

Only then can a universally inclusive policy be justifiable, posing no detrimental threat to our own socioeconomic status.

The best immigration policy there was and still is,is called "Integration" Far less problematic than Multiculturalism and the host nation does not loose its identity as is the case in Multiculturalism.

Shockadelic "A "non-racist" policy may inadvertently promote other prejudices, as less "developed" populations are more likely to be sexist, homophobic, religiously intolerant, unsympathetic to the disabled, etc."

Gee Shockadelic, it seems to me that you are suggesting that several contributors to this very forum should not be allowed to remain in Australia, given that you are describing their very own attributes!

[Deleted for abuse.]

Shockadelic, I agree with your ideals. But I think that there are two more important things to consider.

1. Our immigration program should be made up predominantly of refugees, being those that are the most needy of resettlement in relation to our offshore refugee programs.

2. Most important by far; the size of our immigration program should be vastly smaller.

The scale of immigration needs to be in line with budgetary constraints. Immigration currently imposes enormous pressures on the budget by way of the need to duplicate basic infrastructure and services, and repair or upgrade overburdened existing I & S, as well as environmental damage, and an ever-greater need for food and all manner of basic resources, and for ever-greater export income.

The scale of our immigration program needs to be in line with the achievement of a stable population and a sustainable society.

Within a net zero immigration program, we would still have scope for a refugee intake that is a fair bit larger than at present, as well as plenty of scope for essential skills and associated family reunion.

The composition of the intake with respect to your four Human Development Index levels would then be of little importance, especially given that the majority of our immigration program would be refugees, which would mostly come from the lowest level.

With net zero immigration, we could bring in 20 to 25 000 refugees per annum, and about 5 000 especially needed skilled people and their families.

Again: by FAR the biggest factor regarding our immigration program is the size of it.

Ludwig,
The most "needy" and vulnerable people in the Third World and in fact the whole world are the educated middle classes.
The small percentage of people running away from Islamic Jihad in Africa and Asia as opposed to joining in or getting used to it are the intellectuals, the doctors, lawyers,the scientists, the secular minded liberals and so forth.
We see it time and again, when the Marxist or Islamic fundamentalists take over an area they shoot the teachers, rape then shoot the nurses and health care workers, behead the government bureaucrats nad clergymen and loot all the small businesses. When all the people of quality are dead or have fled they sit around in the town square all day getting drunk and mooching off the peasants who, while severely put upon still hold their markets and tend their fields.
Hey if Africans and Asians are too stupid to look after their most precious resource, that small contingent on the right side of the IQ bell curve then on that level I agree with you, we should have all the best and brightest people in the world concentrated in the West, if not here then where?

trapdiocan, the question still remains as to *who* is "integrated".
People from very high development countries would be the least problematic.
They already live in a society much like our own.

Suseonline, this is not a debate about our existing citizenry.
Please address the topic.

Nhoj, this is not a debate about our existing citizenry.
Please address the topic.

If you are both so concerned about such prejudices, you should support limiting immigration from the least advanced societies, where they flourish unchallenged.

Ludwig "especially given that the majority of our immigration program would be refugees, which would mostly come from the lowest level."

That's precisely what I wouldn't want.
That would be the most dangerous policy imaginable.

I want to prevent socioeconomic decline, not encourage it.

Improving living standards within the Low-Medium level would do much to reduce the number of refugees in the world.

If that is a concern to anyone, there are many organisations attempting such improvements.
Donate or volunteer.

The primary concern of our immigration policy should be its effect on *us*, not the immigrants.

"the biggest factor regarding our immigration program is the size of it."

Our immigration would be halved, even with current numbers, just by excluding the Low/Medium range.

The high/very high range is less likely to need state assistance, and ideally those things (public housing, schools, hospitals, welfare) need to be phased out.

Adding more Medium/Low will make phasing out state assistance impossible.

why would those who 'run-away...from home and family..possably be seeking..comming here

this report Reveals Indigenous Human Rights Abuses
by Corporations/ngo's, and poor Governments..in the Amazon
By: WakingTimes

clearly/these globabilists are doing this globally
so the globalists are getting a free lunch..how about a new tax on huge globalists..?

where is their socio-ecomimic good for the people/whos trusts they betray..

<<Regnskogfondet (the Rainforest Foundation of Norway)
recently released a 52-page report entitled “Human Rights and Resource Conflicts in the Amazon.”..>>

The report took over six months to complete and gives an in-depth account of the conflicts activists and indigenous peoples (IPs) are having with corporations and governmental agencies.

It relays a situation..that does not look good.
what are the justification..to exploit others ritches?

http://www.wakingtimes.com/2014/05/16/report-reveals-indigenous-human-rights-abuses-corporations-governments-amazon/

and the thing is its happening here as we speak/first polute the authority/..then loot and plunder to thyne hearts content..sure some escape the dragnett..but we will return a few of them as kings.

hahaha..outcasts/made kings\
just give us your peoples wealth
we will house educate and heal your whole family..
even subsidize them their medicine..proof of residency..or vacation home/with free medical/

plan b?
http://investmentwatchblog.com/investing-in-ourselves/

That is the beauty behind "Integration" ! Integration was used in Australia after the white Australia Policy and before the Multiculturalism policy ! it is a policy that does not reflect a racist stance but it has an effect on the people who choose to immigrate to Australia ! simply because they cannot keep their community values and customs intact as is the problem with Multiculturalism ! it attracts people who are alike in mind values and customs thus it creates cohesion rather than division in the overall society ! Simply put "When In Rome"

I agree Shockadelic.

Luddy the only difference between a refugee & an oppressor, is who won the fight.

Give these refugees the upper hand, & watch the worst aggressive behavior. This is what we are seeing with most, & I mean most, when they find themselves in control of one of our city suburbs, with softly softly policing letting them get away with murder.

The very worst people we have ever had come to Oz are these we are currently letting in, to pacify the bleeding hearts. It has to stop.

trapdiocan.
I agree with you, the emphasis should be on integration.

Multiculturalists only want diversity for the sake of diversity, with no consideration to whether or not some will not integrate.

From our own experience we should stop allowing in those who have shown they cannot/will not integrate and have nothing but contempt for our laws and social standards. There are only a few groups that need to be disallowed from coming here, but some have been here 3-4 generations and still have hatred for other groups and disregard our standards.

Some aspects of culture are so ingrained that they will never change. Our emphasis should be on social cohesion and our first concern should be to our citizens, not some alien culture.

Hasbeen, how about a few names of 'all' these refugees coming here and 'getting away with murder'?
That sounds dreadful if it is true.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't refugees living under the same laws as everyone else if they live in Australia?
Surely if they commit murder they would be faced with the same punishments as anyone else?

Suggesting we need only middle to upper class refugees, with qualifications we need in Australia , may have some merit.
However, to be fair, we would need to send all lower class citizens, with few or unneeded qualifications, and all those on pensions or welfare payments of any sort, away to other more 'lowlife' countries, wouldn't you think?

Well I'm ok to stay here, how about everyone else?

Nhoj - Could you please direct me to some of your posts where you actually have something nice to say about someones comments, who disagrees with you or you have valid counter arguments to direct to them, rather than your usual character assassinations.

I wrote:

<< The composition of the intake with respect to your four Human Development Index levels would then be of little importance, especially given that the majority of our immigration program would be refugees, which would mostly come from the lowest level. >>

Shocka, you replied:

<< That's precisely what I wouldn't want. That would be the most dangerous policy imaginable. >>

Consider the size of the intake. I’m talking about ~20 000 refugees per annum, within a net zero immigration program of ?~30 000 pa. This is tiny compared to our current immigration intake.

We could surely accommodate 20 000 people from the lowest socioeconomic levels. Or perhaps a lot of them would be from higher levels, as Jay suggests.

<< I want to prevent socioeconomic decline, not encourage it. >>

Of course. And the biggest factor here is the size of our immigration program and our economic ability to support it. The socioeconomic impacts of budgetary stresses rendered by a grossly oversized immigration intake are enormous.

Reducing immigration progressively to net zero is of huge socioeconomic importance. The composition at net zero would then be of very little significance.

<< The primary concern of our immigration policy should be its effect on *us*, not the immigrants. >>

Absolutely!

<< Our immigration would be halved, even with current numbers, just by excluding the Low/Medium range. >>

Ok, I can go along with that.

It is not of much consequence to me as to which components of our immigration program get reduced the most, just as long as the overall numbers are greatly reduced. But if we were to work on the low to medium Human Development Index range first, then fine. Or perhaps those that are least likely to integrate should go first.

trapdiocan, people in the Very High level already share similar "mind values" to us.

They are modern, liberal, democratic, educated people. (Or more likely to be than the lower levels, which is why the lower levels are lower).
No need for "integration" programs.

Suseonline, nobody is going to be "sent away".
We just need to stop exacerbating the problems by not adding more.

It would be unethical to deport people we've already granted citizenship to.
Civilised people keep their word.

Ludwig "our economic ability to support it."

But we don't really have the ability to "support" any immigration.

Not while we still have 100,000 homeless, 700,000 unemployed and millions still leaning on those state-supplied "crutches" I mentioned.

We live in illusory "prosperity" with fraudulent "high living standards" while-ever those crutches exist.

"Or perhaps those that are least likely to integrate should go first."

Excluding the Low/Medium range inadvertently accomplishes that aim, without "naming names".

If a Low/Medium country roars up the list, that means whatever problems we may have had with those people are disappearing within that population.

Taking only High/Very High means taking people who've proven their ability and willingness to embrace the modern world.

If we only took Very High, we may not even need to monitor "net" movements.
With those, we could even have open movement, like with New Zealand.

The Very High are not "desperate and dateless".
There would be no massive influx.
Their local opportunities are much the same as ours.

....The best immigration policy there was and still is,is called "Integration" Far less problematic than Multiculturalism and the host nation does not loose its identity as is the case in Multiculturalism.
Posted by trapdiocan, Monday, 19 May 2014 1:10:39 AM

Need anyone say anymore!

<< But we don't really have the ability to "support" any immigration. Not while we still have 100,000 homeless, 700,000 unemployed and millions still leaning on those state-supplied "crutches" I mentioned.>>

True enough, Shocka.

There is certainly a valid argument for putting a moratorium on immigration until such a time that all of these things are taken care of, and then perhaps reinstigating an immigration program, not higher than net zero.

This makes my push for an initial big cut to immigration followed by progressive reductions until we reach net zero in perhaps a decade’s time look very well balanced…. which of course it is!!

In the interests of achieving a much better average quality of life for the existing citizenry and getting ourselves on the right track towards a sustainable society, I could certainly take a much harder line against immigration than what I do.

<< Need anyone say anymore! >>

Rehctub, there is one very important further consideration: the scale of our immigration intake.

This makes ALL the difference! Much more so than the multiculturalism-versus-integration factor or the Human Development Index level of immigrants.

Shocoholic- You will find that "Integration" is the only real option it serves your needs better than you think it may, trust me on that ! the only other option would be to have no immigration whatsoever and that would upset Australia's standing to the outside world, I know that we are limited in our resource capacity to sustain large numbers of immigrants but if have a policy that dissuades people from wanting to come to our shores because of changes that they will have to make to fit in then inherently the numbers will go down ! It is also interesting to note before Multiculturalism in the days of Integration there were no boat people, something you may wish to take on board .

trapdiocan,

Why hasn't Japan's international standing suffered because they have virtually zero immigration and virtually no refugees? We can do what is in our best interests on this. Ludwig is proposing zero net immigration (immigration = emigration), which means that the intake would vary from year to year, but emigration was about 83,000 last year, just counting Australian citizens.

Shockadelic actually has a point. Just as our globalist elite have been brilliant at bringing down fertility rates (by making people economically insecure, overcrowding them, and inflating the cost of their housing), they have also been brilliant at creating racism where it didn't exist before. The recipe is simple. You bring in migrants from the most incompatible culture that you can find, one with attitudes and customs that the host society is sure to find abhorrent, and vice versa. You import them in large numbers, so that they can congregate in particular areas, insulating them from the pressure to assimilate or go home, if they find the host society too offensive. Then you pit them against the existing residents in competition for inadequate supplies of jobs, housing, public services, and amenities. Voila, instant racism. It should be noted, though, that reducing the numbers would fix most of the problems. Nor is it a good idea to keep out very talented individuals, who will only be available in small numbers in any case, because of problems with their home culture, provided that they have been screened for security issues. As a general rule, though, it is best to bring in migrants who will find it easier to fit in, ones from countries that rank very high or high on the UN's Human Development Index.

Divergence-We signed unite nations treaties to accept immigrants, Japan did not ! In today's PC world and the risks of being labeled a racist country one has to be very very careful on any immigration policy they put forward "Integration" is a policy that avoids those types of problems ! The other benefit of Integration is then you can be more specific on what types of people you allow to immigrate depending on our needs as they happen without it being racially based ! their are many many skills that are only found in certain regions of the world with limited numbers ! so we choose those particular skills, it does not appear racist based and still retains the virtue of being politically correct ! It denies no one of any race color or social standing to immigrate to Australia as long as they fit the criteria !its win win !

Ludwig, we represent part of the problem.
Many people agree numbers need to drop, but disagree on exactly what to do.

Your emphasis on "refugees" I cannot agree with.

I think most people claiming refuge are not genuine.

Europe is much closer to the Middle East and Africa, with a dozen or more countries where asylum could be sort.

Why travel twice the distance to *one* isolated country?

And how desperate are you really, if you have $20,000 to pay a smuggler?
Why not pay Qantas $1000? Because you're hiding something?

trapdiocan, choosing mostly Very High immigrants makes "integration" virtually automatic.
These people already live in a society much like ours.

Who do you think will "integrate" easiest, a Swedish architect or a Tajik goat herder?

"upset Australia's standing to the outside world"

So would *any* limitation, no matter how justified.

Too bad for the rest of the world.
Do you honestly think there'd be any kind of boycott/embargo over this?

"a policy that dissuades people from wanting to come to our shores because of changes that they will have to make to fit in then inherently the numbers will go down!"

Really? The fact we are a European/Western country doesn't seem to deter the 80% of our current intake from non-European ancestry.

Choosing mostly Very High will also "inherently" make numbers go down, as these countries are on the same level as us, with much the same opportunities.

So little incentive to move.

"the risks of being labeled a racist country... without it being racially based!"

Again, who cares about other people's reactions.
This is *our* future we're concerned about.

A policy based on HDI has no "racial" basis whatsoever, even if it indirectly favours Whites.
It is quite easy to argue its rationale is not race.

"as long as they fit the criteria"

Now you have to evaluate millions of applicants, increasing bureaucratic costs.

The criteria may also change, making past rejected applicants (with the same now-in-demand skills) furious, seeking legal compensation.

Restriction to Very High could be open movement (like New Zealand) eliminating much of the bureaucracy.

Divergence "Nor is it a good idea to keep out very talented individuals, who will only be available in small numbers in any case, because of problems with their home culture"

The problem there is it creates a precedent.
"You accepted him, why not me?"

A ban on an entire country due to HDI classification/value is a position no individual applicant can question, or challenge in appeals for years.

Yes, that may exclude some excellent people, but as you note, there are few of them.

Perhaps they can use another country as a stepping stone (e.g. become a French citizen, then apply for Australia).

One thing I haven't touched on is where exactly to draw the line.

Some of those High countries are a bit questionable (Lebanon, Bosnia, Saudi Arabia?)

Australia's HDI value is 0.938.
The world average is 0.694.
The half way point between is therefore 0.816 (Portugal!).

This limit would exclude some Very High (Latvia, Argentina, Seychelles, Croatia) and every other level.

<< Many people agree numbers need to drop, but disagree on exactly what to do. >>

Yes Shocka, and if a political party was to put forward a proposal for reducing immigration by a big amount, I’m sure there would be enormous support from the general populace. In fact this could be a real election winner!

Before the last Federal election I was calling on Labor to embrace a big cut to immigration, in line with Gillard’s ‘sustainable Australia, not a big Australia’ comments. Labor was set to lose the election by a big margin, so they had nothing to lose. I reckon if they’d done it they would have kept power. But alas, they couldn’t see their way clear to do it.

<< Your emphasis on "refugees" I cannot agree with. I think most people claiming refuge are not genuine. >>

I’m talking about drawing ALL refugees that we resettle in Australia from our offshore programs of international aid and refugee assistance, where we can see that they are genuine refugees.

We would choose exactly who comes to this country, on the basis of who is the most needy. There wouldn’t be any claims for refugee status, let alone non-genuine ones.

Trapdiocan,

There is no UN convention obliging Australia or any other country to take immigrants. Australia did sign the 1951 Refugee Convention, but so did Japan. Signatory countries are not required under the Convention to give refugees permanent residency or citizenship, just a safe place to stay until they can go home. Countries can also withdraw from the Convention.

Shockadelic,

Open borders with even other rich countries are not a good idea. We are self-sufficient in food, and most of them are not. This is likely to become more important in the future, as agricultural inputs such as oil and phosphate rock get scarcer and more expensive, and food prices rise on the world market. The open borders arrangement with New Zealand has also caused some more immediate problems because it allows New Zealand to export their unemployment problem to us and attract short-term migrants with the lure of moving on to Australia. The migrants only have to work in New Zealand for a few years, just long enough to take out New Zealand citizenship, and then move on to Australia.

Divergance- I stand corrected on the issue of signatories to immigration,its always good to learn something new even for an old dog like me :)
Any talk of changing Australian immigration policies must somehow avoid any perceived attack on racial grounds,and that is no easy feat ! It must also not offend the Politically correct brigade,because these two terms political correct and racism have trapped us with the Multiculturalism policy we have at this moment in time Political Correctness and Racism as being the weapons of choice by which the supporters have kept the debate on immigration stifled, and that is what you will face if you attempt to modify any part of the Multiculturalism policy or replace it with any other type of immigration policy ! Why I push"integration" Is that it leaves the choice of migration to Australia up to the individual,if they think that they can live in our society and blend in with our beliefs an meet our expectations they will come here, but if they do not then they will not !This is the reason that boat people did not bother with trying to come to Australia before the advent of Multiculturalism ! There is no blame because it is their choice and their choice only whether they choose to immigrate here or not !

Well, this was a waste of time.

The nationalists can agree on one thing: numbers need to be reduced.
Great. That gets us nowhere.

And the panculturalists?
Can't even be bothered debating a gradualist approach.

A couple popped by to make a flippant remark.
What a shock.

Well, I guess I'll just have to wait for the civil war to shake things up a bit.
Until then both sides will just bicker and waddle along.

Dear Shockadelic,

Aww mate don't be like that.

Look I'm prepared to put the time into a civilized discussion about the issue if you like.

Just as an opening teaser I was watching The Voice with my kids and this fella came on and belted out a great performance.

http://www.thevoice.com.au/video/videos/week_3/julian-simonsz-sings-suit-and-tie_2715.html

He is of Sri Lankan heritage (one of your Low-Medium types) and so is his wife. Newly married they had postponed their honeymoon to go on the show. They had another wedding celebration scheduled in Sri Lanka. He has a degree, seems young, bright, enthusiastic, a great addition to our country. He also, at least in my eyes, seems pretty much an Aussie as any, just listen to the conversation with the judges at the end of the performance.

My father in law is German immigrant and he recently received a request from a distant family member for assistance emigrating to Australia. He is in computer programming and has fallen in love with the idea of living in this country. I'm sure he would also make a great addition to our country although he is closer to 50 than 30. Who should get the opportunity? Well I think we are a big enough country to be prepared to offer it to those to whom it would make the greatest difference. We should rightly feel good about ourselves when we see couples like this.

Hi Steele,

I am sure that Shocka will be along soon to sort you out, but just a couple of observations whilst we are waiting
(and on the topic of Shocka sorting you out --I hope you have full hospital and medical cover!):

1) If it is well and good to use someones performance on an overly-hyped, pre-scripted modern day Roman circus aka The Voice, as a selling point on open slather immigration: [to paraphrase you] *LOOK, LOOK X is a good singer and open immigration bought him to us...awwww! (dribble dribble)*. I guess you and your open-border cohorts wont be whining about selectivity or generalisations the next someone argues against it, evidencing that Y is a utter bastard and he arrived here the same way!

2) Why is being younger necessarily more postive –see here where you list all his positive attributes “ He has a degree, seems YOUNG, bright, enthusiastic, a great addition to our country”. And you exhibit the same ageist prejudice when you talk about you long suffering father-in-law “ I'm sure he would also make a great addition to our country ALTHOUGH CLOSER TO 50 THAN 30” --have you cleared this prejudice with your masters?

social provacateuring qar/quote..<<.and open immigration bought him to us...awwww! (dribble dribble)*.>>

WE ALL HAVE OUR BURDENS
BUT IM WONDERING/WHY ..YOU GIVE THEM*..SO MUCH OF YOUR OWN TIME[THE THINGDS I DONT CONCERN ABOUT/I FOIRGET[AND LIFE GETS EASIER]

<<..I guess you and your open-border/cohorts>>

US SURRENDERING..OUR CONBCIOUS/WILL AND THINKING
THAT MANS BORDERS ARE A SILLY MEASAURE OF WORTH OR VALUES

you/me\we..them/they...<<..wont be whining about selectivity or generalisations the next someone argues against it,..evidencing that Y is a utter bastard..and he arrived here the same way!>>

present one/lets judge
pattell?..

<<....Why is being younger..necessarily more postive>>

the media presents/youth..youth IS IN OUR FACE/youtyh is ore postitive[so many who beganb thinking left/noR THING FULLY RIGHT

[WHATYEVER/LEFT\RIGHT..MAY..MEAN

<<..–see here/where you list.all his positive attributes>>

YOU NEVER DONE FORMAL DE*BAITING..HAVE YOU?

<<..“He has a degree,seems YOUNG, bright, enthusiastic, a great addition to our country”...And you exhibit the same ageist prejudice when you talk about you long suffering father-in-law “>>

OH/LORDY..thats a long bow[a low blow]..
maybe you have done debating..BUT LETS NOW MAKE YOU DE/BAIT.

<<.. I'm sure he would also make a great addition to our country ALTHOUGH CLOSER TO 50 THAN 30”>>

ignore the troll/play..the ball

<<.. --have you cleared this prejudice with your masters?>>

i know your masters..ARE ZION/
LETS TALK ISRAE-LIE AGGRESSION/ON ITS OLD/YOUNG ALIKE?

A NEW ISRAELI WAR ~~ AGAINST PALESTINIAN BANKS THIS TIME
http://desertpeace.wordpress.com/2014/05/24/a-new-israeli-war-against-palestinian-banks-this-time/
One such measure is that Israel informed the Palestinian side that it would no longer allow Palestinian banks to transport their surplus Israeli currency to the Israeli Central Bank, an act that is unheard of in the world of banking. Israel is refusing to serve its own currency.
http://www.newsforage.com/2014/05/the-truth-about-race-in-america-its.html
In effect,.Israel is declaring war on the Palestinian economy, risking the collapse of the thriving Palestinian banking sector, and disrupting the flow of basic goods such as electricity, petroleum, and natural gas into Palestine.
http://bit.ly/1jgqe7E
http://www.blacklistednews.com/Introducing_%E2%80%9CSubprime_Business_Lending%E2%80%9D_%E2%80%93_Loans_with_125%25_Interest_Rates_Are_Being_Securitized_and_Sold_to_Investors/35426/0/0/0/Y/M.html

SteeleRedux, we all know there are individuals of potential value from all peoples and places (the Victor Chang argument).

But measures like HDI show the *aggregate* within a country.

If a country is problematic, the people living there probably are too.
A country's "development" reflects its population's contemporary character.

All peoples may potentially be capable of the same advancement, but that's the future.
We live in the present.
And right now, all populations are not "equal" or there'd be no HDI list.

My preference is for open movement, but *only* from similarly advanced societies/populations, eliminating much of the bureaucracy.

Instead of evaluating millions of individual applicants (costly bureaucracy), we evaluate countries, making a *probabilistic* judgement that the Very High HDI ones have a *lot* of valuable people, not a scrap here and there.

There may be some valuable people in Mozambique, but not enough of them to make a difference to Mozambique or to us.

And what chance does Mozambique have, if western countries steal all their best and brightest?

If and when Mozambique makes it to the Very High level, it means the *general* population (not just a few rare individuals) are on the same level as us.

As for age, there are good points either way.
The young can reproduce and have a long working life ahead of them.
But the older can be wiser, wealthier and more tempered by life experience.

Plus there are old and young in every country/population, which brings us back to the original issue: which countries to include?

In my many previous debates here, I've found no attempt to compromise between the nationalists and the panculturalists.
This HDI-based policy is my attempt to reconcile the two.

Initially, the policy would inadvertently favour White populations (but not because they're White), but gradually, as countries move up the list, more and more non-European populations would be included (but only *after* they've proven themselves).

Ludwig and Divergence,
Trust you both are still reading this thread.

I got up both the sites that Divergence listed. sustainable population party and Stop population growth now party and cannot find any info relating to costs of immigration.

Do either of you know any sources of such information?

Dear Shockadelic,

Ultimately I think we are just coming at this from a different perspective or value set.

To me giving someone an opportunity to live their life in my country is a gift. My ancestors helped create a place that is relatively free, with good rule of law, strong democratic institutions, a humane welfare state, relatively non-exploitative workplaces and a general propensity not to take ourselves too seriously. I see that gift as something that should go to people whom it will help or lift the most.

I have sympathy for the words that grace the Statue of Liberty, "Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free". I see it as a noble sentiment and one befitting one of the wealthiest countries on the Earth if we continue to embrace it.

I would rail against the notion that we scour the world only for those who are best placed to further us monetarily. In some ways our business migration scheme is doing just that. I find it unedifying and selfish and if you sat down most Australians I think you would find them a little discomforted by that fact.

SteeleRedux "Ultimately I think we are just coming at this from a different perspective or value set."

Yes, idealist vs realist.
This is the fundamental divide on this issue, I think (not White vs Multi).

The HDI is about more than money.
If that was my only concern, I'd be using a GDP-per-capita reference.

HDI is a "quality of life" index, and even the "inequality-adjusted" version (potential development) shows much the same rankings.

The first rule of success in any field is focus/efficiency.

Why look for needles in haystacks, when you can get a whole truckload of needles from the Very High Needle Factory?

This is basically what "White Australia" was.
It wasn't really *just* about race, it was about those needles, quality-of-life.

At the time, only White populations were "advanced".
Japan, South Korea and the few other exceptions only became "Very High" after WWII.

All those wonderful things you mention about Australia are not detachable from the population itself.

If you drastically, suddenly, transform the population (current immigration 69% Not-Very-High) you are risking a deterioration of those very benefits.
For what gain, a one-in-a-million Victor Chang?

If the Not-Very-High populations are capable of the same advancement, they'll be higher on the list one day.
All I'm saying is let's wait till they get there.

Why scour the world for rare elusive needles?
We already know exactly where to look.

Dear Shockadelic,

You wrote;

“The HDI is about more than money. If that was my only concern, I'd be using a GDP-per-capita reference.”

You might need to work a little harder to convince me on that score.

If I may so bold I would like to present the reasons for my scepticism and invite you to counter them as you see fit.

In your opening post you talked about the multiculturalists as being “generous” with the West's cornucopia.

You said; “Our immigration policy should pose no detriment to our socioeconomic status.”, “I want to prevent socioeconomic decline, not encourage it.”, “We live in illusory "prosperity" with fraudulent "high living standards".

Admitting you concern over your own share of the pie is not a crime, embrace it and argue from that position.

You label the distinction between us the 'idealist vs realist'. While I'm not sure I entirely agree I will note those opposed to the abolition of slavery in England talked about its cost to the economy. Idealism sees new ways forward, new and brighter futures while those so called 'realists' only know the past and can't imagine new ways of doing things. But in reality my position is not all that new and if it was good enough to be inscribed on the Statue of Liberty then I am hardly likely to disown it here am I?

You will however be pleased to know that for every highly educated person who leaves this country 7 more immigrate. It is one of the highest percentages in the world. Are you really suggesting we increase this even further?

SteeleRedux "Admitting you concern over your own share of the pie is not a crime, embrace it and argue from that position."

I thought I was.
But not only my share, but the share of all of us (including past immigrants) already living here.

Where is the slice for our 100,000 homeless, our 700,000 unemployed?
We have our own tired and poor!

"Socioeconomic" covers both social and economic factors: quality-of-life.
Which is what HDI is, a quality-of-life index.
Some of those indexes look ludicrous.
HDI seems the most believable.

Not-Very-High immigrants are going to take a slice, but *probabilistically* will contribute less to the pie.

"those opposed to the abolition of slavery in England talked about its cost to the economy."

And those opposed to reducing immigration do the same.
The economy will crash! Trade will decline! The sky will fall!
Who will clean my floors?

Realism isn't about the past, it's about now.
Compare Japan, past and present.
One can even be realistic about ideals.

The whole world will probably one day be borderless, with free movement of people and goods.
This policy is a realistic, responsible approach to that end, taking it slow, over centuries.

"Are you really suggesting we increase this even further?"

With immigration limited to Very High countries, there would be no flood.
The opportunities here are much the same as in their own country.

Not so with the lower levels.
The opportunities here will always look better than where they are, so the desperation/demand is relentless.

We cannot take the world's "huddled masses".
That would destroy the very "bounty" that tempts them.

If you want them to "breathe free", help improve the conditions in their homelands.

Taking a tiny fraction of their tired and poor makes no difference to those left behind (actually, they're probably worse off, with all the "brains" gone), and threatens a deterioration in our own conditions.
Lose, lose.

Dear Shockadelic,

You talk about the homeless and the poor in our country but I recall you being dead against a mining super-profits tax. Our three major mining tycoons own more personal wealth that the bottom million Australians. I'm not sure immigrants should be paying the price of the spiralling inequity in this nation of ours but that is an aside.

We are one of the richest countries in the world yet are one of the most insistent on highly skilled or wealthy individuals make up the bulk of our migration stream.

You say “If you want them to "breathe free", help improve the conditions in their homelands.” yet Abbott has dramatically cut our overseas aid budget while countries like the UK, even with a conservative PM, are increasing theirs. It is now at .56% of GDP compared to our .36% and that was before the 8 billion is stripped from it over the next 5 years.

If the world lived by your mantra there would be no poor immigrants being given places in developed nations and aid would dry to a trickle. Thankfully much of the developed world does not think this way but I am increasingly depressed about the selfishness exhibited by some Australians and echoed by our governments.

I had thought we were better than that.

I opposed the mining tax for the same reason I oppose most other taxes.
I want a *simple* tax system, a singular unavoidable tax on bank transactions.

Gina will pay it too, and there'll be no deduction, rebate or exemption loopholes.
You can't fudge and fiddle your way out of it.

"I'm not sure immigrants should be paying the price of the spiralling inequity in this nation"

Potential immigrants.
They're not immigrants unless we let them in.

"Potential immigrants" in the Third World may be paying a price they don't deserve, but that's the consequences of a million decisions already made throughout history.

There's not much our domestic policies (including taxation) can do about it.

"no poor immigrants being given places in developed nations and aid would dry to a trickle".

Excuse me, there's no "poor" people in Very High countries?

I proposed *free* movement of people between Very High countries.

That means poor Americans (even Black ones!), poor Brits (even Black ones!), poor French (even Black ones!) could migrate here.

Aid from the government would end, yes.
Not from *you*, as under my single bank transaction tax, you'd probably have more to spare.

*You* can choose to donate, along with millions of other Australians.

The government is supposed to collect taxes for *our* benefit, not the benefit of the citizens of other nations or international organisations.

I'm depressed by the *lack* of genuine selfishness in our people and governments.

Many Australians are apathetic, complacent, live-for-the-weekend dolts.
I don't know why I try to defend them.

If we're destroyed by our own cluelessness, maybe we deserve destruction.

Hail Multopia! Bringer of Doom!

SteeleRedux, "We are one of the richest countries in the world yet are one of the most insistent on highly skilled or wealthy individuals make up the bulk of our migration stream"

No, some are hairdressers and other semi-skilled occupations who are brought in to take care of the many thousands of lazy, tattooed, whining, sociopathic drunks who rely on others to support them.

It has been the constant complaint of building trades I hire that they cannot get young men OR WOMEN to take up the training and well-paid work that they offer. Why is it for instance that a roof tiler is forced to recruit his crew from overseas?

It is so typical of the Greens that they would prefer 'open door' immigration where they give preference to those buff young men who take the illegal route to Australia, destroying their papers en-route, and taking their spot in the Centrelink queues forever.

Australia's prosperity and freedom were hard fought. Why don't those buff young male economic migrants take care of their women at home?

Dear Shockadelic,

I think it is pretty telling that both you and OTB are so down on even your own countrymen. The circle of those you consider 'worthy' does not really extend to our borders does it? Rather it is far tighter.

As I alluded to earlier this is more about attitudes rather than facts. We obviously have differing views on humanity and they will obviously impact on the way we feel about refugees and immigration.

Dear OTB,

Sorry mate but “buff young male economic migrants” and “buff young men”?

That had me head scratching for a bit but then I remembered an earlier exchange around Adam Goodes.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5804#163769

As I said at the time these are deep seated issues you might need to see someone about. I reiterate that advice here.

Steelredux,

<< I said at the time these are deep seated issues you might need to see someone about>>

I think you are the one who has cognitive issues that serioesly need addressing. You clearly have a problem with retention. And only one of your eyes seems to be functional.

SteeleRedux, there is nothing wrong with either view, but a realist/pessimist view will prevent much potential turmoil, while an idealist/optimist view will make insufficient preparation for it.

So in the long run, idealism/optimism, while appearing nicer, can produce worse outcomes, as sensible precautions are not taken.

Idealism/optimism has produced some of the world's worst tragedies (Nazism, Communism, the Inquisition, Jim Jones).
It's the idealists' big dreams that often turn into nightmares.

Choosing immigrants from populations that are observably, verifiably sophisticated/successful is one sensible precaution we should take.

Humans are apes, not angels.
To much stress and the snarling and chestbeating begins.

We've come a long way, baby. But it's a fragile thing this "civilisation".
It's crumbled before and can do so again.

Shockadelic

<<idealism...[and Steeleredux]>>

I have to differ with you about Steeley being idealistic.

Like a lot of the loony left he uses the language of idealism.
But if you take a wider perspective of his game plan he is ONLY about advocating causes that undermine the West
--Islam is misunderstood
--Israel is bad the others good
--The use of drones is immoral (no word of the tactics of the otherside)
--Our borders shold be open to all comers
--We need world giovt to address AGW

He is a classic Poirotian--Foxian--Jamesian--Nhojian clone.

I EXPECT/THAT THERE ARE CRITERIA/FOR IMAGRATION
one is of course docile SHEEPLE/WHO DO AS THEIR TOLD
two will OF COURSE BE NON SMOKERS.can you imadine govt paying for free smoke..[well they used too[first time i got jailed/they used to give two 50 gram packs..[the last time they give you just enough in cash credit/at 'buy up..to buy 25 grams..

BUT THE POINT BEING....BY WHAT CRITERIA ARE WE BEIONG OVERWELMED
IF ITS ALL LIBERAL OR GREEn voters..how easy to do sauch things[or those who vote as the priest tells them..

the absUrd rate of imagration..WILL NO DOUDT ALL BE
SPECIALLY SELECTED TO BREED FUTURE ARMIES AND FUTURE TAX PAYERS...SHEEPLE/NON SMOKING NON DRINKING..ever more sevile

and dont dare protest/complain..or standout
cause if ya pick ya stock..just right..
ya get wherE WE ARE TODAY.

clearly english wasnt a biggie when they let me par-rents in.
JUST STRONG BACKS..and thick heads/hands on worker..going by their produce.