The problem with immigration into Australia is Australia is a welfare state. In a welfare state, wealth is redistributed. This is only possible if more money is put in than is taken out. More must be put in than is taken out, rather than an equivalent amount, because the welfare state is intrinsically inefficient; so it must take from us more than it gives to us. In order to survive, the welfare state must ensure that it can continue to operate in this way. Individual refugees aren't necessarily going to be net takers from the welfare state, but, in general, any population increase is going to increase the burden on the welfare state. The more people taking from the welfare state, the more the welfare state must take from everyone else. And if it isn't overtly taking money in greater taxes it must exert greater control over people's activities to ensure that what is extracted from the welfare state is less than what is contributed to it . Controlling immigration is just one way that the welfare state protects itself. So if we want to address the root cause of immigration control,let's advocate that the welfare state be wound back. Here are some helpful links: http://archive.mises.org/4891/immigration-plus-welfare-state-equal-police-st... https://mises.org/journals/jls/13_2/13_2_4.pdf http://mises.org/journals/jls/22_1/22_1_3.pdf On 17 August 2012 17:57, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
On Fri, 17 Aug 2012, tim josling <tej@melbpc.org.au> wrote:
a) What measures do we take in regard to people showing up? Do we try to inhibit this at all? Do we monitor arrivals? Based on the policy, how many people will show up and what would the cost and consequences be? What would the monitoring cost? What would be the numbers of boat people who arrive and how many would likely die at sea per annum?
As previous analysis on this list has shown the cost would be less than the current policy no matter what you do.
b) What do we do with the people who show up? Bearing in mind some will be refugees and others will be economic migrants, and others will be criminals. Do we allow anyone who arrives to stay? If not, how do we force the others to stay? Do we assess people, and what do we do with them in the meantime? What do we do with people we decide we don't want to allow to stay?
If it is found that someone is not a genuine refugee then they get sent back where they came from.
c) How many of the tens of millions of people in refugee status around the world will come to Australia. Will the policy imply an increase in overall immigration? Should other components be cut to compensate? What would be the economic, environmental, and social impacts of this change on current residents of Australia?
Currently the regular immigrants outnumber refugees by more than an order of magnitude. This includes "economic migrants" from second-world countries like the US.
In my previous message I pointed out that the birth rate here isn't much greater than in China with their "single child policy". We RELY on immigrants!
d) What is the health, mental health and educational and vocational status of people who are likely to take advantage of the proposed system? What sort of citizens have refugees or other unscheduled arrivals made historically? Did this depend on our screening processes? What will be the economic and social impact?
We are obliged to accept genuine refugees regardless of mental health etc. But that said the people who manage to travel any significant distance tend to be smarter and more resourceful than those who don't.
When I worked in Europe I discovered that Australians apparently have a reputation for working really hard, something that I would never have guessed based on my experience working here. It seems that lazy people stay home while people who go to the other side of the world for career benefits (or whatever reason) work hard when they get there.
I don't want to provoke an argument about this. I would just like to know has someone actually thought through the implications of alternative policies.
If you don't want to have an argument then do some research and stop with the leading questions.
Nor do I mean to diminish the terrible plight of refugees and other impoverished people around the world. Personally my gut feel is we should quadruple the refugee quota but try to discourage people from arriving via dangerous boat journeys. I doubt our willingness and even our ability to take all of the tens of millions of refugees from around the world.
The vast majority of refugees won't get as far as Australia.
Also note that a good portion of refugees would be happy to go back if things stabilise. If the Australian government was to help establish peaceful democratic governments in some of the war-torn countries then that would not only decrease the number of refugees but result in some people going back.
Politicians are notorious for ignoring the second-order effects of their policies. Some material on second-order effects at this link
http://infoproc.blogspot.com.au/2008/03/charlie-munger-ricardo-and-finance .
html
One problem with that article is that it doesn't consider all the issues related to trade with China. If the Chinese currency had been allowed to float on the market like most other currencies or if the Chinese government had allowed it's citizens to share in the wealth (instead of just investing in the US) then things would be quite different. Things made in China wouldn't be nearly as cheap, Chinese people would be better off, and more work would be done in the US.
Also the point about nuclear weapons is silly. The USSR demonstrated that no particular level of international trade is necessary to make nukes and North Korea has demonstrated that it can be done while subsisting on international welfare.
-- My Main Blog http://etbe.coker.com.au/ My Documents Blog http://doc.coker.com.au/ _______________________________________________ luv-talk mailing list luv-talk@lists.luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-talk