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.