http://www.ldp.org.au/federal/policies/immigration.html

“…or very practical objects (where are we going fill holes in our labor [sic] market from, like doctors?)” – if necessary, migrants, yes – but no citizenship for them. And better, remove the underlying causes of any shortfalls during the time bought.

“…philosphically, I think your idea of migration is a recipe that would lead to the stagnation of ideas (and the enevitable decline that comes from it).” Rubbish; we don’t need migrants for that, not after we already have the ones we’ve got. To think otherwise is to think more of the same would bring new stuff. Granted, new ideas form where they came from after they’ve left – but cultural transmission needs very few more actual people.

“If migrants come in and bring new ideas with them and happen to be more successful than the local population, is there anything really wrong with that?” – Yes, for us (the local population); contrariwise, if they don’t, there’s still nothing in it for us. Remember, this topic is about conserving, not replacing, our cultural values and material benefits. Improving on them comes afterwards – no betting the farm. Think uitlanders in the Boer republics, or agency costs and dilution of equity.

‘The Ogden poem here misses an important point — that if the “Japanese” in this case brought new ideas and was hence more successful, then he may well have benefitted everyone.’ – wrong, in the same way (and it’s Ogden Nash). The poem is illustrating the other case, what happens when the outsider displaces, not forgetting the potential when the outsider supports, because that was the situation when Ogden Nash was writing. But, again, we should attend to that case first or we’re betting what we can’t afford to lose.

“Surely the idea of bringing new ideas is one of the goals of non-humanitarian migration…” – well, that neither works nor is necessary. Go and see, ideas travel in other ways, without the weight of equity dilution.

“…if we only took people somehow similar to ourselves, then aside from practical considerations, it’s hard to see why we would do it” – well, there was a real point until the ’50s, from economies of scale and synergies.

“In addition, taking in people with different ideas has been obviously beneficial in Australia’s case. That includes culturally (say, the Greeks in Melbourne), and economically (say, the recently arrived HK Chinese in Sydney).” – beep, you’re building in your assumptions. It’s clearly wrong, culturally, unless you measure things by the very standards created by the changes; that side is self fulfilling. And, since we have moved past the point of economies of scale, bringing in more migrants lowers the per capita availability of material benefits – so, unless they are seriously less successful than the previous population (which they aren’t), the equity dilution makes the previous population worse off materially. “Australia” is better off, but only because the newcomers are counted in; “Australia” isn’t the same thing as the previous population.

“Also, as a minor point, I don’t see why you are going to deny South Africans, aside from that they Africans. WHy are they somehow bad?” I don’t know why their institutions that they got from our common heritage didn’t take, though I can guess, but they didn’t. So it’s not a case of being bad, but of being other. Hey, I gave India the benefit of the doubt.

“For that matter, there are certainly functional African countries in the Commonwealth, like Botswana.” Wrong, the function they preserved is real but has deviated from what we once had in common – thus, “other”. Malawi almost made it, until twenty years ago, but they rejected the path Hastings Banda wanted. Good for them – but, not for us.

“There also countries run by Africans (most of the West Indies), that are culturally very similar (e.g., Barbados). Are these countries ok in your books?” No, for the same reasons. Ditto I wouldn’t accept the USA, either; again, it’s not a question of good or bad, it’s a question of other or connected.

Aside from the practical objections (what’s a connection?) or very practical objects (where are we going fill holes in our labor market from, like doctors?), philosphically, I think your idea of migration is a recipe that would lead to the stagnation of ideas (and the enevitable decline that comes from it). If migrants come in and bring new ideas with them and happen to be more successful than the local population, is there anything really wrong with that? The Ogden poem here misses an important point — that if the “Japanese” in this case brought new ideas and was hence more successful, then he may well have benefitted everyone. (cf. What did the Roman’s do for us? or more recently what did the Jews do for 20th century science?)

Surely the idea of bringing new ideas is one of the goals of non-humanitarian migration — if we only took people somehow similar to ourselves, then aside from practical considerations, it’s hard to see why we would do it. In addition, taking in people with different ideas has been obviously beneficial in Australia’s case. That includes culturally (say, the Greeks in Melbourne), and economically (say, the recently arrived HK Chinese in Sydney).

Also, as a minor point, I don’t see why you are going to deny South Africans, aside from that they Africans. WHy are they somehow bad? For that matter, there are certainly functional African countries in the Commonwealth, like Botswana. There also countries run by Africans (most of the West Indies), that are culturally very similar (e.g., Barbados). Are these countries ok in your books?

I think excluding people from citizenship over the very long term would possible breed resentment. However I have no specific evidence for that. Switzerland has a 12 year exclusion and it would be interesting to know how that works out in practice.