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.