Island Life: Browned to perfection
97 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 Newer→ Last
-
I like NZ too, a lot in fact. However, I can safely say that the official picture given out by countries legations is at variance with reality.
-
Personally I'm all for higher density, same as Deep Red & Rich. The only problem that I can see is that the local infrastructure always seems to lag behind the actual population by about fifteen years, so we get horribly less efficient before we get any more so.
I'd like to address another issue though, with regards to our hypothetical unchecked migration: I work for a company that hires a very high proportion of immigrants; most from Hong Kong & China. The deciding factor for most of them being employed was that they expected far lower salaries than the kiwis that applied. This is really fantastic for a small company such as the one I work for (and to be honest, a couple of applicants' expectations about an entry-level call centre job were laughable), but on a national scale I think it has serious ramifications for our already-quite-low-wage environment.
And this particular issue isn't completely hypothetical. In October, China tabled a bid to allow skilled temporary workers into NZ as part of a future FTA. I was surprised that I didn't hear anything about it in the news: a friend that's currently in China pointed me at an online Herald article that was available for about five minutes (this is even after Winston Peters kicked up a stink over it - has he really lost his mediability to such an extent?). Actually, I'd be very keen to know what the outcome of that particular discussion was...
-
Ben, I can think of numerous examples of where a very relaxed attitude to immigration and a lack of planning has created all sorts of community difficulties, not just lack of adequate services.
I'm planning a trip to Montpelier later this year where there is a major problem with ethnic slums, unemployment and violence (there are examples in Sydney also as you may well be aware; the riots in Maroubra were essential a reaction against migration). Sure France is always going to be more popular than NZ, but the point is that without some sort of planning you risk recreating the problems the migrant group is hoping to avoid (or the dawn raids I referred to earlier).
The point about skilled migrants displacing local skills is in fact not generally an issue, not in Australia anyway (despite some ridiculous statements from electrical unions). In a planned scheme, the eligibility of migrants is linked to demand for skill (that is to offset domestic skill shortages).
We probably won't get any closer to a consensus on this - not becuase we have a different attitude to migrants per se, but because I suspect we have different views the roles of government.
-
Heather's point is an excellent one - the same is occuring in Sydney - in one recent example Irish trackwork riders have been imported because they'll work for the shitty wages that Australian's won't - in effect migration is being used to artificially lower wages.
-
Joining the debate rather late, but responding to Don Christie's point on page 1:
The squeals of anguish now that folks like my own good self are being targeted are a wonder to behold. Trouble is, no one seems to see the irony. Is it because white folk are less likely to be Muslims (in some minds at least)?
There's a fair few of us who have railed against Peters-esque immigration rhetoric for years, irrespective of who is advancing it, and which particular groups they happen to be targetting at any one time.
No Right Turn (in particular) has been very consistent in its critique of implicitly and explicitly racist immigration policies touted by a wide range of political parties. I don't see the "howls of anguish" being louder, or more anguished, in this particular instance. There hasn't been too much howling in the foregoing 70-odd comments on this board for example.
I have no time for "blood quantum" nonsense (and said so on my blog when Don Brash ventured into that territory) but one might think a person of Turia's decidely mixed background would be a little more cautious about essentializing in this way (and confusing skin colour, ethnicity and citizenship - or not even caring about the differences between these things).
-
but one might think a person of Turia's decidely mixed background would be a little more cautious about essentializing in this way (and confusing skin colour, ethnicity and citizenship - or not even caring about the differences between these things).
Well, I didn't want to go there... but on one level, it's not really that different from the Trust Fund Marxists I knew at university, or (on a more sinister footing) how often converts seem drawn to the most extreme, and extremely intolerant, sects in their chosen faith. One appeal of any rigid ideological framework - political, religious, whatever - is that it's one way to avoid (or actively strike back at) the messy, complex and perhaps even intractable bullshit of being alive.
-
One appeal of any rigid ideological framework - political, religious, whatever - is that it's one way to avoid (or actively strike back at) the messy, complex and perhaps even intractable bullshit of being alive.
Nicely put.
-
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. :-)
-
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? Nothing.
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.
I think this is a red herring Peter. Qualifications are a significant predictor of income and labour market participation. They might not be exact but to argue otherwise simply because you can name dozen or more millionaires who don't have qualifications is absurd.
My disagreement with Ben's suggestion was not that migrants are a drain on the domestic population, rather that having no policy would make planning incredibly difficult - how would you plan for building new schools if you didn't know the ages of migrants? On what basis would you fund gynaecological services if you didn't know the gender of migrants? If you undertook no assessment of skills, how could you hope to solve skill shortages (though they're often overstated, there are real skill shortages in NZ)?
-
Paul, you're right in that it's overstating it to say *any* immigration policy must be racist. But I think almost every policy will unfairly disadvantage some group, probably along racial lines.
I'm just following your numbers argument to the conclusion. I actually think you're right - the flow should be controlled to some extent. I just don't particularly like the social engineering that seems to always accompany that. You could control flow fairly - if we decide we can't take more than, say, 50,000 new immigrants every year, then we could just randomly select amongst however many applicants there are (keeping families together of course). And that's only *if* there really is a problem. Currently that's only hypothesized.
Planning is all very well, but if your planning involves making some desired demographic blueprint around your plans, I think they're not serving the purpose, they are driving it.
-
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
-
Qualifications are a significant predictor of income and labour market participation.
So is gender, race, age, and lots of other things we choose not to discriminate on. So what? Ultimately, who cares if some of the immigrants that come here are poor? Are only locals allowed to be poor? Surely it makes more sense to have some unskilled immigrants available to drive taxis alongside all the doctors and engineers.
... rather that having no policy would make planning incredibly difficult...
Planned economies are teh stupid, only slightly less so than leaving it all up to the rich (aka "the market"). One should build schools and hospitals where the classes and beds are full, do all the medical services that need done (and are declared affordable) as they are discovered, doling out the money as it comes up.
Sure, have a good guess what costs will be for the year, and try to be thrifty, but don't restrict plainly needed spending based on those guesses! -
So is gender, race, age, and lots of other things we choose not to discriminate on.
Tussock, actually gender and race are not terribly good predictors of income or labour market participation (race is relevant to qualifications, gender isn't).
Also, I'm not suggesting some centralised control of the entire economy but... building schools and hositals when existing facilities are full is a pretty good way of ensuring waiting lists and over-crowded schools. Generally, schools and hospitals are planned over 10 - 20 year horizons and are linked to other developments including roading, public transport, sewage blah blah blah blah blah...
Peter, your examples don't negate the fact that earnings and labour market participation are tightly correlated with qualifications. Your "many" is not all, nor is it most. Most high wage earners are qualified at or above trade level. Therefore, if we have any interest in migrants finding meaningful work, we should have a look at their qualifications/skills compared with employers' demand.
I wonder if your examples of poor planning aren't really about funding. There is only so much government can or should plan, but schools, roads and hospitals are up there... and I'm not for one moment suggesting no migration 'cause it muck's with our plans, I'm just saying opening the borders makes it damn near impossible to plan sensibly - I have no problem with additional migration, none whatsoever... the more the merrier I say.
-
Also, I'm not suggesting some centralised control of the entire economy but... building schools and hositals when existing facilities are full is a pretty good way of ensuring waiting lists and over-crowded schools.
I think even in PC's minimalist state, you'd want to be able to plan police resourcing too. Well, actually especially if you were running basically open borders.
-
Any politcal journo in NZ worth their salt could've driven a bus through Turia's argument. At some point in the not too distant past she would have some european ancestory herself... I'd put money on it. Thus rendering her argument completely hypocritcal. New Zealand's rate of net immagration is still very low in comparison with many other OECD countries.
Really I feel that Turia is doing herself and maori no favours with her little xenaphobic outburst. There is an issue in New Zealand of continuing marginalisation of maori when it comes to employment opportunities and higher education that does need to be redressed.
I think more of the hot air Turia is expelling on her , pointless 'No Euro's' immagration policy could've been better used to highlight the institutionalised racism that still prevails from some white NZers toward maori. Start dismantling the 'maori equates to crime, high unemployment, doemstic abuse and drink drug abuse stereotypes'. These attitudes are held by people who already live in NZ. Not new migrants. After that rant I need to go trade in my NZ passport for a Republic of Curmudgeon one. -
Any politcal journo in NZ worth their salt could've driven a bus through Turia's argument. At some point in the not too distant past she would have some european ancestory herself... I'd put money on it. Thus rendering her argument completely hypocritcal.
Her father is/was American. I have no idea as to his ethnicity, and nor is it any of my business. But had she paid the slightest attention to the US during the course of her life (and I suspect she has), she would have noted that not all holders of US citizenship are "white". Indeed, it is likely that, at some point, she was herself eligible to take out US citizenship. Maybe she even took up the opportunity.
I don't think the details of her background make her "completely hypocritical" - but it was duplicitous of her to identify "Canada" and "Europe" as sources of these problematic white immigrants, when neither Canada, nor any continental European country, appears in the top 10 source countries for migrants in 05/06, while the USA does.
-
Doesn't Judith HMS Collins have a bit of chinese in her, at least occassionally?
-
Riddley Walker, eh. Well, Mr and Mrs Walker are clearly more intelligent than Ms Turia:
"...in tu the hart uv the stoan hart uv the dans. Evere thing blippin & bleapin & movin in the shiftin uv thay Nos. Sum tyms bytin sum tyms bit."
-
NoS!
-
Juha said...
NoS!
As you were, Juha. That's Riddleyspeak for numbers, not "network operating system" or whatever.
-
I was thinking Nitrous Oxide. I was blippin & bleapin & movin last time that button was pushed.
-
Arga warga. he he.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.