Archives

Categories

Silly views on migration & population policy

Sinclair Davidson states at Catallaxy that the decision to appoint a “Minister for Population” amounts to a racist return to an exclusionary white Australia policy.  What a foolish post – the claim that the need to set constraints on the level of immigration is ‘racist’ represents a new low for Catallaxy. Davidson quotes Ludwig von Mises on Malthus in an extract that deals with critiquing the ‘iron law of wages’  (this has nothing too do with immigration) and finally closes with the claim that it is restrictive trade union policies that restrict international labour mobility and which therefore unreasonably prevents wages from equalizing internationally.  An interesting double-barreled load of codswallop here since the big immigration expansions in Australia were the product of Labor rule – as is occurring at present. Who anyway, wants wages equalized at levels now prevailing in Beijing and Delhi even if they are augmented by small overall economic efficiency gains?

More substantively a policy of regulating population – this means in the absence of pro- or anti-natality policies, regulating immigration - makes sense if we don’t have ideal environmental policies in place. For example, if we don’t congestion price city traffic and if we don’t adequately charge for incremental infrastructure costs including, particularly, over-utilized water resources.  It also makes sense if we offer public goods such as a public health scheme or subsidized education. Finally, it makes sense if we are concerned about redistributions of income away from labour to capital. 

Even with perfect environmental policies and all public goods being privatized – hopelessly unrealistic assumptions given the state of the Murray Darling Basin and our capital city policies - with an unrestricted immigration intake wages in Australia will approach those of Third World countries who supply the migrants. Yes, there will be ‘gains-from-trade’  but they will all accrue to capital. Having many more people will switch the distribution of income towards land-owners and the asset rich so that, at least, we would need to switch more decisively to taxing capital gains and redistributing the proceeds of such taxes to those who lose out.

The moment then you introduce restrictions on the immigration intake you do have a population policy.  I don’t think Davidson grasps this simple point.

It is very unlikely that the environment will be comprehensively priced and that migrants entering Australia will pay for the additional infrastructure their arrival necessitates.   Without such pricing however there will be rising urban disamenities as pre-existing external costs are exacerbated. Most of us value the high quality natural environment of cities like Melbourne – we don’t seek to live in a city with 7-8 million people. Generally Australians appreciate the value of living sustainably in a country with a decent environment, with a certain amount of elbow room and with some respect for the natural environment.

 To be clear I don’t want to live like Indians or Chinese do in their vast polluted and congested cities.  I value the Australian way of life, the natural amenities Australia provides and I wish to preserve it.

 Davidson’s foolish contribution follows a similar attack by Stephen King on Bob Birrell over at Core Economics.   Birrell’s paper is here.  King’s paper is motivated by Birrell’s criticism of earlier Labor plans to increase Australia’s population from 22 million to 36 million in 40 years  mainly by immigration. Birrell wrote his piece criticizing the economic and environmental implications of the implied change. 

The response of King is pure Dada.  To King a sufficient justification for immigration is that migrants liberated Australians from “lamb and potato mash” cuisine.  As a contribution to the immigration debate this is laughable but it is also a libel on the meaningful contributions that were made by migrants to the Australian community.

Birrell is about defending Australian values not by by recognizing they are worthy of some intrinsic significance that is worthy of respect.   I agree that there is substantial value in the Australian ethos. Those with anti-Australian prejudices denounce racism by a caricatured “evil white Australia” but ignore the bigotry implicit in their own stance.

There is nothing wrong with defending Australian values of democracy, law and order and basic human decency.  We don’t have a caste system in Australia, we don’t have a dominant racist ethic, we do have freedom of religion and don’t kill each other in an attempt to attain political ends.  Nor do we train children to kill those with differing religious views. These are non-negligible national virtues that should not be taken for granted.

Indeed we have been comprehensively conned by those in the multi-culturalist, guilt lobby who assert that Australia is racist and xenophobic when 40 per cent of our population growth since WW2 is made up of migrants.  It is worth emphasising that almost none of the countries of Asia or the Middle East admit any migrants at all – the clatter despite repeated bellyaching about the plight of Palestinian refugees.  Try living as a foreign national in Japan or Thailand and you will soon discover what exclusivity is all about.

If previous posts by mine on the topic of immigration are any guide this post too will attract the pro-immigration fanatics who see any type of immigration restriction as a sign of overwhelming national depravity. My counter-claim is that Australia has always operated a selective immigration policy that does not offer entry to anyone who seeks to come here.   And that is very definitely a good thing.  Those who advocate no immigration restrictions at all – and that is where the contributions of Davidson and King do point – have boxed themselves into a corner with libertarian crazies who ignore the implied environmental costs and the immiseration of Australian workers. Essentially their view that adding more diversity always augments our national advantage indicates a dismissal and perhaps even an implicit hatred of what it means to be an Australian.

 There is a legitimate argument over what the size of the Australian immigration intake should be. There is no argument at all for turning over the debate about population size to anti-Australian bigots and libertarian crazies who see any attempt to restrict the size of intakes as racism. (1546)

8 comments to Silly views on migration & population policy

  • MikeM

    Well said, Harry. What annoys me about people like Davidson is not the fact that they subscribe to an ideology different to mine. It is the fact that they have no bloody common sense.

  • derrida derider

    Sinclair spends entirely too much time at Catallaxy. His powers of reasoning have accordingly been progressively declining for years; I predict that they will asymptote at JC’s.

  • Paul Norton

    As I have written in a number of forums over the past decade, Australia is still a long way from achieve an ecologically sustainable society and economy even at current population levels, and until we are in sight of this objective it is imprudent to be pursuing policies which (whether by accident or design) will cause Australia’s population to become significantly larger. Further, the question of the size of Australia’s migrant intake is quite separate from the question of discrimination against prospective migrants on the basis of race, ethnicity, language, religion or country of origin. There are people and organisations (including some with impeccable democratic credentials) who argue for a relatively small migrant intake whilst insisting that considerations of race, religion, etc., should have no place in deciding which prospective migrants become part of that intake. Labelling such people “racist!” and cutting and pasting slabs of Mises is a very lazy piece of work, especially by someone of Sinclair Davidson’s abilities.

  • Paul Norton

    Other views on the population issue are provided by Robert Merkel at LP with links to Bernard Keane in Crikey, and by myself in 2002 at Online Opinion.

    http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/04/06/want-a-population-policy-give-barry-a-call/comment-page-1/#comment-869947

    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1905

  • [...] course, the announcement bought out a lot of strong statements from both sides of the debate and claims of racism have been bandied about. Hopefully, once the initial excitement [...]

  • Sir Henry Casingbroke

    “Australia now has a minister for population. This is simply cover for a policy of racist exclusion.”

    This is an extremely flimsy premise on which to base an argument (the second sentence simply does not follow from the first – there is no evidence to support that the move is part of a ‘racist’ or even exclusionary policy).

    Davidson tries to simultaneously vilify the Rudd Government (for appointing a population minister) and then use this to argue for an open-door immigration policy. It’s a stretch to try and connect the two and it shows.

    The creation of a population (control) ministry by Rudd and his associates and advisors is a political move to assuage the rising political negatives of a population increase mooted to be 35 million by 2050. See
    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/executive-lifestyle/migrants-key-to-replacing-baby-boomers/story-e6frga5o-1225781339809

    The population increase distribution would be spread unevenly, with Sydney and Melbourne bearing the disproportionate brunt of any increase to what is likely to be the detriment of a quality of life in those two cities.

    That is why elements of both the right and the left have come together to be alarmed and oppose such a move, each for their ideological own reasons.

    Much of the oppositional danger to open-slather immigration – once it gells politically in the electorate, and is exploited by politicians on the make like Abbott – will be in traditional Labor seats.

    The anxiety among the blue collar segments of the population – traditional ALP supporters – is that a large influx of young migrants would tend to lower the working conditions and wages of existing proles through willingness to take any job offered and be more easily intimidated not to seek the protection of a union. This was the same anxiety that led to the formation of the ALP in the first place and indeed to the Federation.

    But elements of the right wing however welcome unfettered immigration – specifically the folk who litter the Catallaxy posts and also greedily* suck on the tit of the mega-industrial benefactors who kick in to the Institute of Public Affairs. An industrial free-for-all is their preferred ideological position.

    The racist jibe is a finger up the arse to the latte sippers of the ALP who would be most uncomfortable with such a sobriquet. I suspect that is why Davidson made it, even if it is a load of rubbish when you think about it.

    __________________
    * Clearly, an academic sinecure is not sufficient.

  • Amy

    Other views on the population issue are provided by Robert Merkel at LP with links to Bernard Keane in Crikey, and by myself in 2002 at Online Opinion.

    http://larvatusprodeo.net/2010/04/06/want-a-population-policy-give-barry-a-call/comment-page-1/#comment-869947

    http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=1905

  • [...] “Pacific Solution” which meant almost no illegal arrivals(here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and particularly here, here etc).  For my troubles I have been labeled a racist [...]

Leave a Reply

  

  

  

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>