The title claims a present state which the article then spends 16 pages complicating. The honest version is “Australia built a popular immigration system, then broke public trust by bolting an uncapped, provider-driven stream onto it.”
Fair. But, as I mentioned in my recent piece on how Canada changed my mind, it's important to have some comparative perspective. Even with all the problems, Ausstralians still (rightly) trust their government more on immigration compared to most other countries.
As an Australian, I was surprised to see Australia being used as an international exemplar in the field of immigration management. It certainly doesn’t reflect the anecdotal feelings here on the ground.
Personally, I am a big supporter of immigration and believe strongly that Australia has a lot to offer the world in policy innovation and democracy (ie, compulsory and preferential voting). But there is a deep malaise in the electorate and a growing discontent with our institutions and political elites.
No different to many other parts of the world.
In relation to immigration, this discontent is not just with the raw numbers but with the racial mix (yes, this is racist), social harmony, criminality (ie, cigarette wars) and youth crime.
But we have heard it before: Italians and Greeks in 1950s and 60s; Vietnamese in the 70s; Lebanese in 80s; Chinese in 2000s, Iraqi, Iranians and now Africans.
It always surprises me that many immigrants are often enthusiastic to close the immigration door behind them. Especially if is not their friends and family.
Immigration is not the problem it is just the lighting rod.
The problem is poor investment in physical and social infrastructure over the last 15-20 years and a failure by our leaders to explain the benefits of immigration and a multicultural society.
Word choice is important. Credibility can be lost and won.
Two protesters were killed while interfering with ICE operations. I don't condone the killings by any stretch. But no one merely protesting was harmed in any video I have seen.
From what I can tell, the Nauru detention scheme is in fact extremely cruel to those detained, and the Manus Island center (which has since closed, I think??) was/is even worse. Maybe there is a trolley-problem situation here where those victims of international apartheid are the necessary sacrifices to enable the Australian public to sustainably tolerate respect for the freedom of movement of many more people. But it's hard to ask a cosmopolitan not to recoil in horror at such a price.
As for the immigrants to German who are legally supposed to be deported and aren't being deported, do we know the breakdown of reasons why, e.g. how many of them have a criminal record? It's one thing if German voters are frustrated that people who actually pose some identifiable concrete threat aren't getting removed. It's another thing entirely if the people in question pose no such threat, and are "supposed" to be removed simply because, well, "Wir haben ein Gesetz, und nach dem Gesetz soll er deportieren", if I may paraphrase John 19:7 via Anthony Hecht.
I need to read more about enforcement externalization in Australia, but I feel like cosmopolitan folks should understand the point of having laws and enforcing them, even when you disagree with those laws. If you also care about people around the world regardless of their origin, you should also understand that the direct consequence of preventing the deportation of foreigners who are subject to deportation is that other (often less fortunate) people abroad will likely have fewer opportunities to migrate in the future.
The situation in Germany is pretty straightforward. It would be nice to get the exact breakdown, but my understanding is that there are many people who claimed asylum, failed, then contested that decision, and failed again. These people clearly need to be removed according to most moral frameworks. Otherwise, what is the point of an asylum system at all if you can apply, get rejected, and then stay anyway? A law that can never be enforced against anyone is an aspiration rather than a law. As I explain in my previous essay, liberal democracy in fact thus requires that people who are not supposed to be here actually get deported: (https://www.popularbydesign.org/p/even-in-a-liberal-democracy-some).
Well, I think most moral frameworks also recognize that some laws are so odious that, even if they represent the duly enacted democratic decision of a given electorate, it is wrong to enforce them. Apartheid South Africa had elections, and its electorate decided to promulgate a set of laws which most of us now agree served impermissible ends by impermissible means. The radical cosmopolitan view is that modern immigration restrictions are likewise morally impermissible in both ends and means, to a similar degree and for similar reasons.
I certainly do not expect those restrictions to meet the fate of South African apartheid in my lifetime. And your points about on-net harm reduction in the meantime are as always well taken. Yet the distinction between popularity and justice remains.
Doug Saunders writing in the Globe and Mail the other day suggested that Canada's immigration system should be rejigged to favour "intact families". This is not an idea that I've heard before. I thought of it in opposition to the points system but perhaps you can actually have both criteria working together?
Thanks for sharing this. I think this is an interesting way to frame non-skilled migration, but I am not quite convinced. Besides, the article may be too unnecessarily hawkish on temporary migration which absolutely has its place in Canada and elsewhere.
I despise the whole PR industry around politicians. Their attempts to manipulate us. Every single thing they do is done for only one purpose, to secure their reelection.
Don't get me wrong. I honestly do not think you write necessarily bad things here. You actually do a very good job at analyzing, something increasingly rare in public discourse.
But to truly make a good job as a politician, you need to be laser focused at what is good for the humans and the state, and there are a lot of things to balance out, and that requires transcending any sorts of extrinsic incentives.
I am not allowed to give a dang anymore.
If an actually in the eyes of the public "working" immigration system requires letting people drown in the oceans of the world and deporting them into countries full of violence and oppression against their free will, then the system isn't allowed to exist.
I hear you. People are not very informed or virtuous. But my sense is that the alternative of even liberal democratic governments not being responsive to public opinion is even worse. When people trust the system, they are more likely to give the expert the benefit of the doubt to do things that are good but unpopular.
The title claims a present state which the article then spends 16 pages complicating. The honest version is “Australia built a popular immigration system, then broke public trust by bolting an uncapped, provider-driven stream onto it.”
Fair. But, as I mentioned in my recent piece on how Canada changed my mind, it's important to have some comparative perspective. Even with all the problems, Ausstralians still (rightly) trust their government more on immigration compared to most other countries.
As an Australian, I was surprised to see Australia being used as an international exemplar in the field of immigration management. It certainly doesn’t reflect the anecdotal feelings here on the ground.
Personally, I am a big supporter of immigration and believe strongly that Australia has a lot to offer the world in policy innovation and democracy (ie, compulsory and preferential voting). But there is a deep malaise in the electorate and a growing discontent with our institutions and political elites.
No different to many other parts of the world.
In relation to immigration, this discontent is not just with the raw numbers but with the racial mix (yes, this is racist), social harmony, criminality (ie, cigarette wars) and youth crime.
But we have heard it before: Italians and Greeks in 1950s and 60s; Vietnamese in the 70s; Lebanese in 80s; Chinese in 2000s, Iraqi, Iranians and now Africans.
It always surprises me that many immigrants are often enthusiastic to close the immigration door behind them. Especially if is not their friends and family.
Immigration is not the problem it is just the lighting rod.
The problem is poor investment in physical and social infrastructure over the last 15-20 years and a failure by our leaders to explain the benefits of immigration and a multicultural society.
Word choice is important. Credibility can be lost and won.
Two protesters were killed while interfering with ICE operations. I don't condone the killings by any stretch. But no one merely protesting was harmed in any video I have seen.
From what I can tell, the Nauru detention scheme is in fact extremely cruel to those detained, and the Manus Island center (which has since closed, I think??) was/is even worse. Maybe there is a trolley-problem situation here where those victims of international apartheid are the necessary sacrifices to enable the Australian public to sustainably tolerate respect for the freedom of movement of many more people. But it's hard to ask a cosmopolitan not to recoil in horror at such a price.
As for the immigrants to German who are legally supposed to be deported and aren't being deported, do we know the breakdown of reasons why, e.g. how many of them have a criminal record? It's one thing if German voters are frustrated that people who actually pose some identifiable concrete threat aren't getting removed. It's another thing entirely if the people in question pose no such threat, and are "supposed" to be removed simply because, well, "Wir haben ein Gesetz, und nach dem Gesetz soll er deportieren", if I may paraphrase John 19:7 via Anthony Hecht.
I need to read more about enforcement externalization in Australia, but I feel like cosmopolitan folks should understand the point of having laws and enforcing them, even when you disagree with those laws. If you also care about people around the world regardless of their origin, you should also understand that the direct consequence of preventing the deportation of foreigners who are subject to deportation is that other (often less fortunate) people abroad will likely have fewer opportunities to migrate in the future.
The situation in Germany is pretty straightforward. It would be nice to get the exact breakdown, but my understanding is that there are many people who claimed asylum, failed, then contested that decision, and failed again. These people clearly need to be removed according to most moral frameworks. Otherwise, what is the point of an asylum system at all if you can apply, get rejected, and then stay anyway? A law that can never be enforced against anyone is an aspiration rather than a law. As I explain in my previous essay, liberal democracy in fact thus requires that people who are not supposed to be here actually get deported: (https://www.popularbydesign.org/p/even-in-a-liberal-democracy-some).
Well, I think most moral frameworks also recognize that some laws are so odious that, even if they represent the duly enacted democratic decision of a given electorate, it is wrong to enforce them. Apartheid South Africa had elections, and its electorate decided to promulgate a set of laws which most of us now agree served impermissible ends by impermissible means. The radical cosmopolitan view is that modern immigration restrictions are likewise morally impermissible in both ends and means, to a similar degree and for similar reasons.
I certainly do not expect those restrictions to meet the fate of South African apartheid in my lifetime. And your points about on-net harm reduction in the meantime are as always well taken. Yet the distinction between popularity and justice remains.
Doug Saunders writing in the Globe and Mail the other day suggested that Canada's immigration system should be rejigged to favour "intact families". This is not an idea that I've heard before. I thought of it in opposition to the points system but perhaps you can actually have both criteria working together?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-canada-lower-immigration-targets-economic-growth-doug-saunders
Thanks for sharing this. I think this is an interesting way to frame non-skilled migration, but I am not quite convinced. Besides, the article may be too unnecessarily hawkish on temporary migration which absolutely has its place in Canada and elsewhere.
I’m about to start perusing Tony Keller’s book on the subject so this is all very interesting to me.
I gonna be honest.
I learned to despise public opinion.
I despise the whole PR industry around politicians. Their attempts to manipulate us. Every single thing they do is done for only one purpose, to secure their reelection.
Don't get me wrong. I honestly do not think you write necessarily bad things here. You actually do a very good job at analyzing, something increasingly rare in public discourse.
But to truly make a good job as a politician, you need to be laser focused at what is good for the humans and the state, and there are a lot of things to balance out, and that requires transcending any sorts of extrinsic incentives.
I am not allowed to give a dang anymore.
If an actually in the eyes of the public "working" immigration system requires letting people drown in the oceans of the world and deporting them into countries full of violence and oppression against their free will, then the system isn't allowed to exist.
I hear you. People are not very informed or virtuous. But my sense is that the alternative of even liberal democratic governments not being responsive to public opinion is even worse. When people trust the system, they are more likely to give the expert the benefit of the doubt to do things that are good but unpopular.