I have thought about this long and hard, but the development that the Higher education system (including private universities) is being transformed into a vehicle for "filtered" immigration (see previous entry is one which we should be finding positives for. It has not happened by design, but I couldn't have thought of a better way to both have a large immigration intake and have it roughly filtered - by youth, finances and intelligence. If we take a holistic approach to the higher education system, rather than pigeonholing on what form a "good" university should take, the advantages of encouraging and utilising this trend should be obvious - especially to someone with a commitment to open borders.
I feel that there is only a few tweaks required, and the Higher education system can be a model of how immigration can be regulated such that it is fully funded, reasonably inclusive of the different source nations, and allows a good amount of time for the would be immigrant to be "tested" - with University exams and the whole Australian experience being a test as to whether they really want to stay here, and whether their peers who help them with their red tape etc. really want them to stay here.
Showing posts with label Australian foreign policy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Australian foreign policy. Show all posts
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Supporting one type of people smuggler whilst frowning on another
A few years back I read about an interesting idea to tackle people smugglers. Rather than deterrence, the idea was to actively compete with them for money from the type of potential migrant/refugee that would be tempted to pay a person smuggler. A new type of entry visa would be created (undocumented economic migrant?), and it would be an industry rather than an expense for the receiving country.
It appears that Australias foreign student intake see Article, is more about this burgeoning immigration industry than it is about the higher education industry, at least for Chinese and Indian potential immigrants. I am not sure what percentage students are of our current net migration intake, but it is a very high proportion.
It appears that Australias foreign student intake see Article, is more about this burgeoning immigration industry than it is about the higher education industry, at least for Chinese and Indian potential immigrants. I am not sure what percentage students are of our current net migration intake, but it is a very high proportion.
Wednesday, October 03, 2007
Immigration Model
The immigration quota system in Australia is like a control valve. I have been violently against import quotas for goods because of the highly impractical nature of doing that and the pointlessness. However with permanent migrants, it is a form of population growth planning which if not completely admirable, does help stability. Opening the valve to double the flow will still be controlled and very desirable.
Increase Refugee and Immigrant quotas!
The 2006/07 migration program has 144,000 regular migrants and 13,000 humanitarian migrants - both rates are at record high levels - much higher than under Labor. Is it wrong to want people with skills who will make good citizens?
This rate might seem high, but Australia has a capacity for it to be much higher(1). Talk of skills and citizenship potential is a pointless diversion. Migrants and refugees select themselves quite well. Refugees from anywhere are often skilled. What is the point of a trained accountant when he becomes dispossessed because of war? Let more refugees in and let our flexible job market (and world best help programs here) sort it out. Labour moves to where it is needed in Australia, and short-term training fills many skills gaps quite nicely. It is pointless to dwell on importing skills of which there is a world-wide shortage. Rely on the flexibility and mobility of labour here to do the best we can with what we have got (and are getting). More important than new entrants showing citizenship skills, is Australia demonstrating that it is an excellent world citizen. Increasing refugee intake is a win-win in this case. Refugees bring a range of (fairly random) skill-sets which are lapped up by the businesses that require that - even if what is required is keen unskilled workers. It is the less keen that are unemployed in Australia. At the same time, on the international stage, we are shown to be model world citizens if we are progressive and generous in our quota of refugees.
(1) It appears 144k is about 10% more than the previous year. 13k refugees is about 20-30% increase. These increases were made quietly and in a bipartisan fashion. No attempt by either party has been made to advertise or attack this gradual policy shift. The public only needs to continue to give "permission" to the governments to increase these quotas, such as not to tempt them to partisanise the issue.
This rate might seem high, but Australia has a capacity for it to be much higher(1). Talk of skills and citizenship potential is a pointless diversion. Migrants and refugees select themselves quite well. Refugees from anywhere are often skilled. What is the point of a trained accountant when he becomes dispossessed because of war? Let more refugees in and let our flexible job market (and world best help programs here) sort it out. Labour moves to where it is needed in Australia, and short-term training fills many skills gaps quite nicely. It is pointless to dwell on importing skills of which there is a world-wide shortage. Rely on the flexibility and mobility of labour here to do the best we can with what we have got (and are getting). More important than new entrants showing citizenship skills, is Australia demonstrating that it is an excellent world citizen. Increasing refugee intake is a win-win in this case. Refugees bring a range of (fairly random) skill-sets which are lapped up by the businesses that require that - even if what is required is keen unskilled workers. It is the less keen that are unemployed in Australia. At the same time, on the international stage, we are shown to be model world citizens if we are progressive and generous in our quota of refugees.
(1) It appears 144k is about 10% more than the previous year. 13k refugees is about 20-30% increase. These increases were made quietly and in a bipartisan fashion. No attempt by either party has been made to advertise or attack this gradual policy shift. The public only needs to continue to give "permission" to the governments to increase these quotas, such as not to tempt them to partisanise the issue.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
What Australia Can do to progress the middle east situation
I promised I would actually put something down along these lines, but it is quite difficult to get all of my thoughts straight. So I'll try to put something in point form.
* As a small country, and not say the leader of the free world, it is not what we do per se that makes the most difference, but the example we display.
* Our actions around the Pacific are the main thrust of this. We have shown the right way to involve our military. We have made our forces extremely accessible in situations in the Solomons, East Timor, Bougainville, Aceh, Bali, PNG just to name a few, and most importantly, have not placed any conditions and have asked for practically nothing in return.
* In the Middle East, we have punched well above our weight. We were pretty much bound to act alongside the US for the most part, however. For a long time, we have had way less fatalities and accidents than the norm. Partly, this is because our forces tend to attract less attention, and they tend to be more specialised.
* Things like knowing Arabic language, being more disciplined than the Americans, showing compassion for the ordinary citizen rather than complete fear of everyone amongst them. These are attributes which would make a helpful example to others.
* As a small country, and not say the leader of the free world, it is not what we do per se that makes the most difference, but the example we display.
* Our actions around the Pacific are the main thrust of this. We have shown the right way to involve our military. We have made our forces extremely accessible in situations in the Solomons, East Timor, Bougainville, Aceh, Bali, PNG just to name a few, and most importantly, have not placed any conditions and have asked for practically nothing in return.
* In the Middle East, we have punched well above our weight. We were pretty much bound to act alongside the US for the most part, however. For a long time, we have had way less fatalities and accidents than the norm. Partly, this is because our forces tend to attract less attention, and they tend to be more specialised.
* Things like knowing Arabic language, being more disciplined than the Americans, showing compassion for the ordinary citizen rather than complete fear of everyone amongst them. These are attributes which would make a helpful example to others.
Tuesday, June 06, 2006
Lonely sherrif
Policing the pacific is something Australia is doing well. I would argue that it isn't really costing us in the long term. What better possible training can an army get than policing a small neighbouring country. Relatively moderate risk operations like this mean that almost all of our army (including reserves) has experience in overseas conflict situations. Neighbouring Asia/Pacific countries' armies/police end up further and further behind in their deployment effectiveness as they continue to refuse to give any more than token help. Money invested in such neighbourly peacekeeping deployment is extremely well spent. Australia's army recruitment is working in overdrive again and plenty of ordinary people are tempted to join.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)