[I'm not actually sure what position you were taking, Tim, so apologies if I'm violently agreeing with you ;-)] Tim Josling wrote:
In general except for underpopulated countries around 100% of the benefits of immigration go to the immigrants.
Citation needed.
An actual policy proposal would straightforwardly answer these questions:
1. What measures would you put in place to discourage people arriving by boat or plane, if any?
That seems to presuppose that immigration is undesirable. For example, aren't we perpetually short on nurses? Don't want to discourage immigration of qualified nurses. Seems to me the actual goal is to *regulate* immigration, to satisfice our human rights obligations and quality of life. (Concrete proposals are left as an exercise for the reader ;-)
3. Would the arrivals get work permits? How would they be supported if they did not get work?
AIUI paying people to sit around doing nothing can actually be cheaper than the negative exeternalities of booting them out on the street.
4. To what degree would you vet arrivals to see if a) they are 'genuine' refugees b) They are criminals, terrorists, or fanatics of one sort or another c) They have communicable illnesses? What level of appeals would be possible? Would we pay for legal aid throughout a long-drawn-out legal process?
You could start by asking them. :-) I'm pretty sure any organized Bad GuysTM could just get into the country via a tourist visa, and your heuristic is never going to eliminate false positives (i.e. some Bad GuysTM will get in no matter what you try). Starting from an assumption of good faith seems like an efficient and reasonable heuristic, and one that's unlikely to antagonize immigrants into new Bad GuysTM. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tit_for_tat Re (c), customs already deals with this for people -- including residents -- entering the country. I don't see why anything special would be needed in terms of screening.
5. When people arrive would they be detained or monitored? Describe these arrangements. Would this depend on the answers to the previous question?
What for? Once they're inprocessed, why would they be more suspect than any other tourist, resident or citizen? I don't remember Indian students I met having to wear ankle bracelets or call their parole officer every eight hours, but maybe they just did it while I wasn't looking. :-)
6. What would you do with people who are not 'genuine' refugees, or who are otherwise undesirable? Would you deport or detain them?
Most of the time, I suppose you just refuse to issue them a visa. I guess you're thinking about the case where they've already arrived on the doorstep and didn't bother to ask for a visa first. You do a quick triage and deal with any human rights obligations, then you either say "no worries, come in and have a beer" or they deadhead back to wherever they came from. I dunno who foots the bill (.au or the other country) in the latter case; presumably there are international agreements about that. Oh, and accepting that you're gonna make mistakes sometimes, letting Bad GuysTM in and sending good men to their deaths.
7. What do you do with people whose status is uncertain? People arrive without documentation, they may lie or exaggerate their predicament. You cannot exactly ask, say, the Iranian government "It is true that if this person were returned then you would persecute them?" and expect a useful answer.
That goes under "assume good faith" / tit-for-tat. You can probably also ask other governments and get some kind of general consensus. I mean, that's how the world decides what is and isn't a "war", right? The UN probably issues GRs all the time that <group> from <place> is being ethnically Put Upon and if they turn up on your doorstep, they're Official RefugeesTM.
[...]
As any aboriginal person would tell you (some have certainly told me in no uncertain terms) people arriving in boats do not necessarily benefit those who were already here.
The honkies turning up didn't work out to well for the locals, but I dunno whether it's appropriate to generalize from that to "anyone who turned up in a boat -- after my boat -- is probably gonna kill me and take my land". Incidentally, I guess we should be calling them "ships". Marinary types seem to be persnickety about the distinction.
I would suggest that you policy proposals are well short of what is needed, in the sense that a hill of beans is short of the Himalayas. Again I ask if people are serious - as opposed to moral posturing - why don't they come up with a specific proposal and show us the analysis of its impact?
Because rhetoric is easier than maths.