Importing Problems

Whenever immigration is discussed, politicians immediately start talking about numbers. One hundred thousand. Five hundred thousand. A million.

The numbers do matter, but there is a more important question.

That question is what happens after they arrive.

If immigration leaves a country safer, more prosperous and more cohesive, then it has been a success.

If it leaves a country more divided, less safe and politically unstable, then it has been a failure.

It really is that simple.

Judge the Policy, Not the Intention

Every government has one fundamental responsibility. To protect the safety, freedom and well-being of its own citizens. Everything else comes second.

Immigration is therefore not a humanitarian exercise. It is a public policy. Like every public policy it should be judged by its results.

Has crime increased? Has terrorism increased? Has social cohesion improved or deteriorated? Do citizens feel safer or less safe?

These are measurable outcomes. They matter far more than the number of visas issued.

Europe Has Become the World's Largest Experiment

For years many European governments insisted that questioning migration policy was driven by prejudice.

Now reality has caught up.

Across Europe, anti-immigration parties are growing because millions of ordinary voters have concluded that their governments ignored obvious warning signs.

The recent unrest in Belfast is another example. Following the alleged stabbing of a local man by a Sudanese asylum seeker, widespread disorder erupted across parts of the city. The riots themselves were criminal and deserved condemnation, but they were also evidence of something deeper—a public that has lost confidence in its government's ability to manage immigration.

The same pattern can be seen elsewhere.

Violent crime involving some recent migrant communities. Terrorist attacks. Growing pressure on police. Parallel societies.

Then comes the inevitable reaction from a minority of the existing population—protests, riots, and sometimes retaliatory violence.

Governments end up importing two problems instead of one.

First, they import people who, in some cases, contribute disproportionately to crime, extremism or social conflict.

Second, they create the conditions in which a small but dangerous minority of their own citizens becomes radicalised in response.

Neither outcome benefits the peaceful majority on either side.

Denmark Chose a Different Path

One country looked at these outcomes and changed course.

The above graph shows the crime rate in Denmark by Nation of Origin for the period 2010-2021. The crime rate is significantly higher for migrants from Middle East and North Africa.  

It is a clear warning. Not all migrants carry the same risk.

If a government's objective is to preserve a safe, stable and cohesive society, they must impose much tighter control over migration and much stronger expectations of integration.

That is exactly what governments are elected to do.

Australia Should Learn the Lesson

Australia is fortunate.

We still have the opportunity to learn from the experience of others before our problems become as entrenched.

The Bondi terrorist attack was a reminder that Australia is not somehow immune from the ideological and cultural conflicts affecting other Western nations.

Ignoring overseas evidence because it is politically uncomfortable is not compassion.

It is negligence.

Put Citizens First

None of this means every migrant is a criminal. That would be absurd.

However policy is never made for individuals. It is made for populations and probabilities. Insurance companies understand this. Public health authorities understand this. Governments should understand it too.

If repeated experience shows that migration from particular regions is consistently associated with higher risks of crime, terrorism or social conflict, responsible governments should take that evidence seriously when deciding future immigration policy.

Their first duty is not to maximise immigration.  It is not to satisfy international opinion. It is not to avoid difficult conversations.

Their first duty is to protect the people who already live within their borders.

Migration should never be judged by good intentions.

It should always be judged by outcomes.

And when the outcomes are poor, good governments change the policy.

Control Immigration or lose your country

Immigration has long been a topic of discussion, particularly in Western countries. The conversation has grown increasingly complex as the scale of immigration has escalated, and in many cases, the influx of migrants has brought about profound changes in the cultural fabric of these nations. One question that remains central to the discussion is: How can countries maintain their identity and values while still being open to newcomers? The recent commentary by Mark Levin in his video, "Levin: This has to be straightened out ASAP," raises a critical point that applies beyond the U.S. – the need for enforcing stricter controls on immigration to preserve national sovereignty and cultural integrity.

Levin argues that modern immigration has deviated from the founding principles established by the framers of the Constitution and the original immigration policies. In the U.S. and other Western nations, the consequences of mass, uncontrolled immigration have led to the erosion of cultural values, linguistic homogeny, and social unity. As he describes, it has become less about immigrants contributing to and assimilating into the host country's culture and more about the host culture being forced to accommodate increasingly divergent traditions. The question is no longer whether we are receiving immigrants, but how we are receiving them and whether they are contributing to the national fabric or fragmenting it.

What are the concerns

In the US the pressing issue has been mass migration, which Levin many have labeled a "massive invasion." There is no  concern about the value immigrants may bring, but rather the lack of alignment between their values and the values of the host nation. Immigration should be a process of assimilation, where the newcomers are not only welcomed but actively embrace the culture, language, and principles of the country they choose to call home.

In his critique, Levin brings up several historical references, including the insight of thinkers like Benjamin Franklin, who in the 1750s expressed concern over immigrants who retained their native languages and customs without blending into the larger cultural society. In Levin’s view, this phenomenon is not merely a challenge—it is a direct threat to the cohesion of the nation.

The Global Context: Immigration Beyond the U.S.

While Levin’s argument focuses on the United States, his concerns are far from U.S.-centric. Many Western nations, from Sweden to Germany, the U.K. to Australia, have accepted large numbers of immigrants, only to find that many of them have failed to assimilate. Instead, these migrants often bring with them their own cultural identities and customs, some of which may be at odds with the host country’s foundational principles.

The Western ideal of a "melting pot" – a place where people of all backgrounds come together and forge a new identity – has given way to a "salad bowl" approach. This model advocates for multiculturalism, where various cultures are preserved rather than integrated, creating divisions that prevent true national unity. This trend, as Levin suggests, risks fracturing societies rather than strengthening them.

The Core Rules of Immigration

To prevent countries from being transformed against the will of their populace, Levin proposes a list of core rules that should be enforced universally in immigration policies. These constraints would ensure that immigrants contribute positively to the country, integrating into society while respecting its traditions and values. Here are the key rules:

1. Cultural and Linguistic Assimilation
   Immigrants should be required to adopt the language and culture of the country. Multilingualism and multiculturalism, when not carefully managed, can result in societal division. Immigrants must be given the tools to integrate fully into the dominant culture to ensure cohesion.

2. Commitment to National Identity
   Immigration should be an act of allegiance, not simply a relocation. Newcomers must pledge allegiance to the nation’s laws, culture, and societal values. This includes respecting democratic institutions and upholding the freedoms and rights that the nation holds dear.

3. Selection Based on Contribution Potential
   Immigration should prioritize individuals who are most likely to contribute to the country’s well-being. This includes assessing skills, education, and character. It’s important to avoid situations where the nation’s resources are strained due to a mismatch between the immigrant population's needs and the country’s capacity to support them.

4. No Double Loyalties
   Dual citizenship should be abandoned, as it can be seen as accepting divided loyalties. Newcomers must be expected to embrace their new country without the option of maintaining sworn allegiances to the countries they have left. This is espcailly true where those countries  have values that conflict with the host nation's.

5. Clear Pathways to Citizenship
   Immigration should not be an automatic gateway to citizenship. Naturalization should be earned over time and require clear demonstration of integration into the social, cultural, and economic fabric of the country.

6. Zero Tolerance for Illegal Immigration
   Immigration laws must be strictly enforced. Illegal immigration not only undermines the legal process but also fosters resentment among the population that follows the rules. The use of legal immigration pathways should be emphasized, and there should be strong penalties for those who bypass legal systems.

7. Cultural Contribution and Adaptation
   Immigrants must be prepared to embrace the core cultural values of the country they are entering. This is not to erase their own heritage, but to ensure that the national culture is preserved and that newcomers are contributing to the shared values that define the society.

8. Education and Public Awareness
   Immigrants should be educated about their new country’s history, values, and institutions. This would help them understand what makes their new home unique and encourage them to appreciate and adapt to the broader society. Similarly, host countries should invest in programs that teach both native citizens and immigrants about the importance of a shared national identity.

9. Limit the numbers

The above rules work to ensure immigrants will over time become productive citizens that build the cohesion within the host country. However they cannot be enforced where the sheer numbers of immigrants swamp the process. Therefore it is essential for countries to limit the numbers of migrants to ensure orderly integration can occur.

Conclusion: The Road to a Stronger Nation

Ultimately, immigration is not just about numbers—it’s about the quality of integration and the contributions immigrants can make to society. The above rules aren’t about rejecting immigrants, but about ensuring that those who come to a new country are truly prepared to become part of its future.  Failure to enforce clear, thoughtful, and consistent immigration policies risks undermining the very cultures and values that make nations great. 

Nations that fail to set boundaries risk eroding their identity, culture, and values. It’s time for a return to policies that put the national interest first, ensuring a prosperous, unified future for all citizens, new and old.

Here is Mark Levin's video; - 

How Australia’s Immigration Policy is Strangling Productivity

Australia's immigration system is broken, and it's dragging down our productivity. The government is holding a productivity roundtable to find strategies to stop the long decline in productivity, but immigration is conspicuously absent from the agenda. This oversight is not just an omission; it's a deliberate blind spot.

The Immigration Disconnect

Leith Van Onselen, Chief Economist for MacroBusiness, has been vocal about the government's mismanagement of immigration. He points out that while immigration doesn't necessarily lower productivity, Australia is importing low-skilled migrants. This influx places immense stress on our infrastructure and increases the burden on the existing workforce. The result? Over the past three years, household wealth has been decreasing.

The government's claim that it would run a smaller and less temporary immigration program has proven false. In reality, Australia's immigration program is larger and more temporary than ever. The numbers speak for themselves.

The Productivity Roundtable: A Missed Opportunity

The current roundtable discussions are focusing on areas like tax reform, AI, and regulation. However, they are neglecting the elephant in the room: immigration. This oversight is a classic example of how politics in Australia is more about serving vested interests than addressing the national interest.

Critics argue that this approach is akin to rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. Without addressing the root cause—mismanaged immigration policies—the government's productivity initiatives are doomed to fail.

A Call for Real Reform

It's time for a serious rethink. Australia needs an immigration system that prioritises the skills we actually need, rather than continuing to import low-skilled labor that exacerbates our productivity problems. Until this fundamental issue is addressed, any talk of boosting productivity is just smoke and mirrors.

---

Relevant Graphs:

1. Labour Productivity Comparison (Australia vs. US):

   Source: MacroBusiness

   
   
   

   Description: This graph illustrates the stagnation of Australia's labour productivity since 2015 compared to the consistent growth in the United States.

2. GDP, Productivity, and Immigration Trends:

   Source: MacroBusiness

   

   
   

   Description: This chart shows the inverse relationship between Australia's GDP per capita growth and immigration rates, highlighting the negative impact of high immigration on productivity.

3. Household Wealth Decline:

   Source: Butler CA

   
4. 
   
5. 
   









Description: These diagrams depict the decline in Australian household net wealth over recent years,  with the strain on infrastructure due to high immigration

Lifetime ban-ter

What's so wrong about a lifetime Visa ban for asylum seekers who had tried to enter Australia by boat? The proposed ban would prevent anyone who has come to Australia by boat from re-entering anytime in the future, even if they have citizenship from another country.

Sounds pretty harsh! After all it could be 40 years from now, when that person may have won a Nobel prize, and wishes to enter for a holiday. I guess these are some of the arguments.

But let's considers some facts; -

• The government has a right to do this. The Australian government has a right to determine who enters the country, and certainly can and does prevent persons of 'doubtful' character from entering. So this declaration is not really novel.

• The person has had fair warning. The Australian Government has already stated that no person who enters Australia by boat will be settled in Australia (courtesy of the Rudd ALP gov in 2013). So again this is not really novel.

• It encourages re-settlement. While NZ has offered to accept some asylum seekers, the Australian government has not allowed this option as the open border between Aus and NZ would enable asylum seekers to circumvent Australia's stated policies. This would inevitably feedback to re-start the boats.

• It hastens closure of the offshore processing centres at Manus/Nauru. While the proposed change will not suddenly empty the detention centres it will encourage asylum seekers to leave voluntarily. By firmly locking the door to settlement in Australia some will inevitably opt to return to their home countries, while others may receive the chance to be-settled in countries such as NZ.

While it may not serve the political purposes of the ALP /Greens and refugee advocates, the legislation can help asylum seekers and there is little downside.

Asylum seekers would far prefer to have an option for re-settlement in a country like NZ, Canada or US than hold-out on Naure/Manus for an indefinite period.  So by arguing against this measure asylum seeker advocates are arguing against the interests of those they claim to support!

Migration not a solution to world poverty

Recently I was sent a relatively old video, updated in 2010, "Immigration, World Poverty and Gumballs" by Roy Beck. It illustrates in a simple and compelling way, the futility of trying to address world poverty by immigration.

It provides a perspective of the size of the poverty problem and how even the most generous migration schemes cannot hope to address the issue.Moreover and this point needs to be emphasized the very generosity of the west in accepting migrants actually makes the problem worse, because the migrants accepted are always the very migrants who could work assiduously to make their home countries better.

While the figures are no doubt out of date, the message is equally relevant today. Indeed, with waves of migrants spreading over Europe they are more relevant than ever.

Should Europe accept these migrants?  Without qualification it is incumbent on all countries to re-settle refugees from war and persecution (see my earlier post on the migration crisis). There is however no obligation to accept so called 'economic' migrants, those who leave their home countries in search of greener pastures.

So often the heart works against the mind. We feel a collective guilt for our prosperity and do not want to deny a chance to at least the few on our doorsteps. Yet we know that we can only offer this to a few, that it encourages ever greater numbers of dissatisfied souls to leave their lands and indeed that it robs their home countries of the most energetic and capable.

The 'gumball' message is clear, it is counter-productive for western developed countries to accept the migrants best equipped to transform their own countries into the type of societies they seek. 

Migration crisis

The scenes of the beleaguered migrants, asylum seekers, or refugees, in camps, in un-seaworthy vessels, and in the sea, drowned bodies, anguished and pained faces, children, mothers, grandmothers assail us. Who cannot be moved to demand action.
It is without doubt a reminder that this world can be a terrible place, if by chance you were born in the wrong time or the wrong place.There is nothing fair about this. Why can some humans live a civil life, without want for food or security, while others are deprived of these human rights. It is not a just world.

Taking stock in a troubled world

Our world is in a sorry state.Wars ravage too many countries, Somalia,Yemen, Syria, Libya, Iraq, Sudan,Ukraine, and others. The great strides in communication technologies have opened up a window to life in all parts of the globe. For the destitute peoples of Africa and Asia, the relative affluence of the developed world is a magnet. Large numbers of people either escaping persecution, and war, or just trying to improve their lives, are all too willing to leave their countries and seek 'asylum' elsewhere. The numbers are staggering, estimates give some 20 million currently living in refugee camps as at end of 2014, but most probably double that in various states of transit across the globe.

Most refugees simply escape war or persecution and join others in camps in the country adjacent to the conflict. They then seek to migrate to the more generous developed world. In response to the escalating need some developed countries have increased their refugee intake from but a few thousand to a few thousand more. Even Germany's dramatic increase to an unprecedented 800,000 this year is but a drop in the ocean when facing a total over 40m.

There is of course widespread media coverage with dramatic scenes of human misery. So we have full time coverage. Emotions in the electorate are running high, and politicians cannot avoid taking some action. But what can they and what should they do? Our government's widely welcomed commitment to resettle an additional 12,000 refugees from the camps is a token. In comparison to other developed countries it is perhaps generous, but it remains nothing but a token when looking at the size of the problem.

Lets face some facts

The current wave of migration is unusual in its extent and size. It has been compared to the wave of relocation following WWII. Yet all efforts to date have been insignificant. Until this wave of refugees broke the shores of Europe over the past 12 months, the West has ignored the problem.

Now, no longer. With tens of thousands of 'migrants' flowing into Italy, Greece, Hungary they are a very visible, ever-present and growing problem.

For Europe solutions are particularly challenging. The European Union was built on a respect for every individual and has long espoused universal human rights. However the large numbers present a problem for even the largest economies. There is of course the very real costs required to house, feed and integrate the new migrants. For the smaller economies who are struggling with their own welfare systems this is no minor issue. But the greater challenge for the largely Christian Europe is cultural, how to accept large numbers of Muslim migrants into your society without changing it.

In all these respects, this mass migration presents a complex dilemma to the developed world.

I do not claim a 'solution', but I think most of our commentators and much of the media seem to avoid some unwelcome facts. Perhaps this is due to political correctness. Perhaps it is hard to look dispassionately at human suffering. Perhaps it is a fear that any harsh judgment will result in criticism directed at the 'messenger'. Indeed this may well result from my voicing some of these issues. Nevertheless, I believe real solutions can only arise if we are honest about the size and nature of the problem. So let me venture some observations.

Borders should be closed 

• Not all 'asylum seekers' are refugees and they should not be treated in the same way.
• The world has too many people who if given the chance have the means to travel to countries which have open borders and which will offer a better life.  
• Germany opening its doors to some 800,000 has caused a virtual run at the borders. This is unsustainable and damaging to every country in the Eurozone. 
• Large and sudden increases in the number of migrants causes economic and social burdens on the receiving countries. Failure to manage the rate of increase and the integration can lead to social unrest, which manifests itself in increased poverty and crime rates and lowers living standards for everyone. 
• Responsible governments will limit their intake of migrants to ensure their own social structures remain intact. Even countries adjacent to conflict zones have enforced camps to limit the impact on their own populations. This is not racism and it is not unreasonable.

Refugees in camps should be given priority for resettlement

• There are millions of poor souls who don't have the means to pay people smugglers or who would not risk the lives of their families. 
• Those who are leaving the camps are trying to 'jump the queue'.
• Those who claim to be refugees and have already left a country where they were safe should be returned to a refugee camp, closest to their point of departure, before being processed. (I have specifically not mentioned the UN convention for refugees, which requires refugees to seek asylum from the first signatory country. It is a sufficient condition that a genuine refugee apply for resettlement from the first country where it has refuge. It goes without saying that those in camps in Turkey and Jordan are safe from the Syrian war.)
• Priority for resettlement should be given to those who have stayed in a camp the longest.

Refugees should not be allowed to chose the country into which they are to be resettled

• Refugees are escaping persecution or war. They are by definition looking for refuge and should automatically be satisfied by whichever country offers this.
• A UN body, most probably the UNHCR should manage the resettlement process. 
• All countries offering places for refugee resettlement should register these with the UNHCR
• Each refugee family should be offered a resettlement country randomly selected.
• A family should have the option to reject the country of resettlement but if they did so they would go to the bottom of the queue for the next selection, and may indeed stay in their camp for years.
• Countries accepting refugees for resettlement also retain their rights to select which refugees they will accept
• A vital consequence of this process is that economic refugees would NOT register as refugees

Funding for refugees has to be provided by the world

• All countries as part of their obligations to the UN should offer to fund the resettlement of refugees. 
• Quite separately all countries should also offer to resettle refugees.
• UNHCR should allocate a fixed US$ amount per person being resettled into a country. This should equate to at least the first 12 months cost of housing and feeding the refugee. This amount should be paid to the resettling country as an incentive for even poorer countries to accept refugees.
• There should in addition be a levy on all countries to ensure the refugee camps are maintained to preserve the well being and dignity of those who are forced to stay in camps till they are resettled.

Stop the wars

• Refugees are a symptom of failed states, and indeed a failed world system
• The world needs to be far more proactive in ensuring leaders do not threaten their own people.
• In many of the troubled areas of the world small groups of armed thugs hold their populations hostage to their whims. In most of these cases the UN and the West could very simply remove the tyrants from power and they should do so.
• I accept that with wars, especially where larger nations are involved, it is far more difficult and we are yet to develop a UN-like body that is effective in these situations.

Clear the camps

One of our millennium goals should be to clear the camps. Too many camps around the world have become the way of life for too many and for too long. 

We can be better...without the hypocrisy

"We're better than this", is the theme of the new emotive song drawing attention to the plight of children in detention as a result of our mandatory detention system. The song sprang into existence in the last week or so. I saw and heard it on Sky News' Viewpoint last Sunday. It has all the makings of a hit. Catchy tune, singers some of Australia's best known names, and a simple heart rending message.
It goes without saying than any right minded Australian, Liberals and Labour alike, would fully agree children (especially young children) are the innocent victims of illegal immigration. As a compassionate country we do not want to see any child in detention.

Utter Hypocrisy

There must be compelling reasons for both Labour and Liberal governments to have enacted a policy that will result in what they individually believe punishes innocents. Indeed there are. I also accept the main message of the song, that we as a country could amend our policies to avoid keeping any child in detention. Isn't that what the Liberal government is trying to achieve with their Temporary Protection Visas policy which is being blocked in the Senate? But I don't want to go into these arguments, as it is not the main point of my post.

My issue is with the timing of the release of this song. We are only now hearing these voices against the now Liberal government's asylum seeker policies. Voices that were very silent for the six years of the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd governments. The new focus on the issue is all the more pathetic since it was in those Labour years that the numbers in detention rose rapidly as a direct result of the policy settings the Labour's 'Rudd government. (See the table below showing the rapid rise in unaccompanied minors in detention from 2008)

Where was the passionate cry for children in detention when the numbers were rising? Where was the human rights commissioner for investigations and accusations. Where was the song then?

I can only conclude that those who instigated this song, some of these well known Australians, did not want to upset their Labour brethren by drawing attention to the Labour's immigration policy failings. In those six years the plight of children in detention was a lesser priority than the well-being of their Labour colleagues. For these instigators the release of this song now is sheer hypocrisy.

 Unaccompanied minors in detention 

Source - http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-2013/Detention