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?