Posts by Peter Cresswell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
And it's not every Monday night you get to catch The Clean at The Windsor Castle! A great night. Well done to all the organisers. :-)
-
Hi Paul,
You make three objections, but I think you'll find they're all answered in the post above. Your first objection is this:
I think the statement that immigration policy is inherently racist is quite simply wrong. Race needn't even be a factor - I've certainly not suggested race/ethnicity/religon as a factor so what's racist about a volume limit and/or a skills limit?
But this is answered above by Rich, who notes that restrictions on who can come here are "predicated on the fact that people who are born in a country are in some way intinsically *good* and those from outside have to prove their *goodness*."
Second, you say that qualifications are not a red herring, and my pointing out that many of this country's most successful and creative people are unqualified by the standards of NZ's immigration criteria is absurd. Well, something's absurd, and I dont thnk it's my point.
As I say above, you simply can't select for those qualities that bring wealth or great creative achievement-- and you certainly couldn't predicate the selection for either of these based on qualifications.
Your third point is essentially that migrants make government planning difficult. Essentialy, what you're saying here is that anything outside the status quo makes government planning difficult. This is true. Production, invention, creation -- all of these things make goivernment planning difficult, if not impossible. This is not an argument for government planning , it is an argument against it. It would be particularly foolish, in my submission, to bar people from a future life NZ just to coddle government planners.
It might be worth pointing out in this context that government planners are hardly up to the mark in any case, even in our present state. The roads presently being constructed and talked about around Auckland, for example, were planned in the sixties, and just being built and re-talked about again now. As "planning" goes, this is hardly a world-class example -- but what government planning is?
The people who really do plan are not government planners, but entrepreneurs, and they are characterised by being able to react to change and to be able to find opportunities in the face of change. YOu might say this is their defining characteristic. As it happens, many immigrants themselves can be so categorised (with or without qualifications), as the success of immigrants worldwide attests.
But in any case, as I said at the outset of this post, the answer to your point is already there in the post above; as Tyler Cowen and Daniel M. Rothschild point out, "Some argue that we should employ a more restrictive policy that allows in only immigrants with 'needed' skills. But this assumes the government can read economic tea leaves."
Has there ever been any evidence of that? if you think so, just have a good look at NZ's present skills shortage, and wonder why government planners, with all their powers, haven't been able to solve them
-
I too have come late to the debate here at Island Life (though not too late to the debate itself), and I've enjoyed immensely the comments here of Ben Wilson, made in defending this point:
"I don't know why we need an immigration policy *at all* [said Ben]. It can never be anything but racist. If people want to come here, let them.
Ben is quite right. Immigration policy is inherently racist, as Rich also points out all too accurately:
"it's predicated on the fact that people who are born in a country are in some way intinsically *good* and those from outside have to prove their *goodness*."
If racism is your thing, then maybe Tariana's chosen brand is your thing. It's not mine. The only non-racist immigration policy would be the following, which I suggest might be the "non-policy policy" Ben is really trying to articulate:
"Entry into New Zealand. should ultimately be free for any foreigner, with the exception of criminals, would-be terrorists, and those carrying infectious diseases."
I've argued that very point some time back in my 'Cue Card Libertarianism' on Immigration, and in many subsequent posts at 'Not PC.'
This is not _just_ a non-racist non-policy -- although it certailny is that, but one that recognises would-be immigrants as real human beings to boot, with real rights. This argument is well put by Harry Binswanger here: Immigration Quotas vs. Individual Rights: The Moral and Practical Case for Open Immigration.
I notice that many have objected to Ben's proposal with the objection that immigrants would, or may be, a drain on everyone else. This ignores the fact that human beings are not, in the main drones who seek to suck off others, and that most immigrants -- when not restricted by red tape excluding them from employment -- have at least the merit of exhibiting the 'get up and go' that made them get up and come here. That much already puts them ahead of some locals.
And the argument about qualifications is, I submit, just a red herring, particularly if you take note of the qualifications -- or more accurately the lack thereof -- of many of NZ's wealthiest and most creative people.
You can't select for those qualities -- and you certainly couldn't predicate the selection based on qualifications.
The simple fact is that open immigration is not just not racist, it is not just expressive of individual rights, it is also good for all of us.
The evidence is overwhelming. If I may ask for your patience for a moment, and for permission to adduce American evidence for the current argument, here is a fair summary, much of which came from a recent 'Reason' magazine:
- Immigrants aren't flocking to the States to mooch off the government.
- 'Illegals' are not milking the government; if anything it is the other way around. The National Research Council found for example that most immigrant families "contribute an average of $80,000 more to federal coffers than they consume over their lifetimes."
- Immigrants generally earn more than they receive.
- More than 60% of illegals -- illegals -- pay income tax, and two-thirds kick in to Social Security (even if they do often get nothing back).
- Immigrants help sustain economic growth and cultural dynamism.
- Even economists who favour restrictive immigration policies admit low-skilled immigrants are a net plus to the economy.
- "Government intervention into the economic system breeds later intervention. Here the application of his principle is, start with the Welfare State, end with the Police State. A police state is what is required effectively to stop substantial illegal immigration that has become a major burden because of the Welfare State." - George Reisman
- Immigrants "are generally less involved in crime than similarly situated groups," and crime rates in border towns "are lower than those of comparable non-border cities."
- Crime rates in the highest-immigration states have been trending significantly downward.
- If capital can cross borders freely, why shouldn't people? There's no reason that the North American Free Trade Agreement (or NZ's own free trade agreements) shouldn't apply equally to people as to widgets.
- Unemployment is low and crime is down everywhere, especially in places teeming with immigrants.
- Google, Yahoo! and Sun Microsystems were all founded by immigrants.
- Immigrants are more likely than 'natives' to be self-employed.
- "Sometimes what looks like lousy conditions to us are the best option an employee has... But sometimes the only reason those conditions are the least bad choice is available is because the other possibilities have been cut off by legal fiat. I'm referring not just to illegal immigrants, who for obvious reasons have little recourse if defrauded or enslaved, but to guest workers, who come here under strict rules that prevent them from changing jobs, let alone striking out on their own." - Jesse Walker. [Take note Phillip Field bashers]
- Immigrants tend to create their own work -- when they're allowed to.
- The power and reach of Spanish-language media in L.A. for example shows supply of productive people creating its own demand.
- Immigrant labour makes work easier for all of us, and brings new skills to the table.
- Immigrants and low-skilled American workers fill very different roles in the economy.
- Immigrant labour makes all businesses easier to start, thus spurring 'native' creativity.
- "Some argue that we should employ a more restrictive policy that allows in only immigrants with 'needed' skills. But this assumes the government can read economic tea leaves." - Tyler Cowen and Daniel M. Rothschild
- New arrivals, by producing more goods and services, keep prices down across the economy -- the net gain to US from immigration is about $7 billion a year.
- Even in the halls of Congress, economic arguments against immigration are losing their aura of truthfulness, so pro-enforcement types are focussing on national security.
- "The only way to actually prevent terrorists from slipping in is to legalize as much 'illegal immigration' as possible. If one is looking for a needle in a haystack, as the saying goes, one has a hell of job. Finding that needle on a relatively clean floor, however, presents an achievable goal." - James Valliant
- Immigration is good for the immigrants themselves.As I said, the evidence for open immigration is overwhelming. You may find links to the articles in which that evidence is adduced in this article, at Not PC: Immigration & the Statue of Bigotry.
Thanks for your patience. And now, back to your regular programme. :-)
-
Great post, David. One of your best. :-)
PC
-
<i>Tangential to the sprawl argument, he slings in some for gated communities."</i>
Oddly enough, I don't mention gated communities at all. What I do mention is choice. When it comes to letting people live the way they wish to live, I am pro-choice. THAT in essence is "the sprawl argument." But read the rest if you want the rest of the argument.
<i><"Privatised utilities are more often than not simply not working in the real world"</i>
Really?
-
Commenters here have been pointing out (correctly) that on day two you'd hardly expect Key's speech to be chock-full of policy.
True. But the complaint here about Key's speech isn't about its lack of policy, it's about a lack of John Key.
What Key promised wasn't a policy speech but a "values" speech -- a speech telling us "who is John Key and what drives him" -- a speech laying out for us his core values. If that's what he delivered, then he's even emptier than he looks.
-
In fact, I wonder if it wouldn't be worthwhile to build an application that based on how MPs vote, puts them on a scale of whatever-winginess."
Now there's an idea worth a geek somewhere pursuing.
Couldn't be too difficult to map the votes on to two axes, one for personal freedom and one for economic freedom, and voila!