Nobody controls immigration into Australia. If Big Australia wants to increase it, they can't. If Small Australia wants to reduce it, they can't. When John Howard said, "But we will control who comes to this country," he was lying then, and it is an even bigger lie now.
In a new stand-up special, "Russell Brand takes a very literal approach in explaining immigration, and further points out the absurdity of fearing others due to "imaginary geopolitical borders." Aren't we all just part of the same, mysterious, rotating sphere?" Huffington Post
Russell quite rightly points out the absurdity of being anti-immigration. The poor, or under privileged, or others simply seeking a better life may wish to move from one country to another. Nobody can reasonably oppose that basic aspiration; within reason.
But each country does have some role to play in managing the flow of people across its borders. Society, by definition, is the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community. If restricting migration flows serves the greater humanitarian good in both the emigration and immigration countries, then open minded due diligence in verifying that reality (or otherwise) will serve that greater good. Globalisation, in the Darwinian sense, is a planet-wrecker regardless of how it occurs.
Global social order does rely on the management of the parts of a whole. The "rotating sphere" that Russell Brand refers to is not a perfect world and management of each part, and the whole, tends to be slightly more complex than a "funny" joke.
For example, there are over a billion desperately poor in the developing world. Most live under autocratic regimes where GDP per capita is less than $1,000 per year. Under such regimes this calculation of GDP per capita can be misleading when the autocrats "own" and control most of the wealth.
In countries like Australia (or the UK for that matter), the Budgetary cost of supporting each individual is far higher than $1,000 per year. In Australia it is roughly $17,000 per person per year. Escalating debt in developed countries is testimony to the cost of supporting the populations of such countries exceeding the capacity of GDP to sustain them. Free market capitalism sucking the lifeblood from the economy is clearly one part of this problem as Russell seeks to highlight.
Many of the poorest people need the most help, but assisting them by facilitating their migration into Australia or the UK is not possible from a humanitarian perspective. A billion people cannot be accommodated in Australia and $17,000 x one billion is $17 trillion dollars a year. The current Australian Federal Budget is less than $400 billion per year and already struggles to support 23 million people. The same logic applies globally to mass migration from the developing world to the developed world.
So there is a shred of logic in seeking to help such people in their home countries where each dollar spent can do more good, rather than sanctioning the preferential mass migration of relatively fortunate people into high cost countries that do not have the capacity to support such rapidly growing numbers of people. If mass migration reduces the capacity of a developed country to provide much needed philanthropic aid to the world's poorest people, why simplistically mischaracterise that reality as anti-immigration? Is this part of a world view based on ideological dogma that lacks a rational, coherent action plan?
Russell spends a large part of his time rightly condemning the free market capitalism that drives global destruction in the name of GDP growth (which is driven by extreme population growth). He promotes equitable distribution of wealth. Does he realise that mass migration of relatively fortunate people into high cost, developed societies is in direct conflict with his popular ideological dogma? This migration clearly exacerbates the redirection of spending on growing migrant populations in the developed world at the expense of the poorest in the developing world.
Here's what Russell had to say:
"Do not pause to reflect that free movement of global capital will necessitate free movement of a global labour force that meet the demands of the free movement of that capital. That is a complex economic idea and you won't understand it."
It seems to me that Russell Brand doesn't understand it either.
Ausfis is one of many private immigration agencies in Australia promoting a problematic political message that sounds like they are representing all Australians and the Australian government and which many Australians would disagree with. Should migration agencies aggressively promote immigration? It's another case of advertising taking over democracy.
https://www.ausfis.org/Home.aspx
Ausfis's talk about 'a new land of opportunity' belies the biogeophysical reality of Australia - the oldest, driest continent.
This is a link that was sent to an immigrant from Peru from someone living in Peru - about inviting migrants to come to Australia because we have opportunities and skills shortages!
It not only refers to skill shortages, but it suggests that its lawyers will get applicants citizenship after four years and encourages immigrants to bring their dependent family members to live here as well, receive health care and use the public education system.
"What are the benefits of receiving a visa via the General Skilled Worker Visa program?
The grass is greener in Australia. If you are planning to make a move outside your home country, Australia should be on the top of your list as a place to make your dreams a reality. Besides legally living and working in Australia, a Australian General Skilled Visa has other benefits,
such as:Bringing all dependent family members with you
Receiving healthcare
Using the public education system
Applying for citizenship after 4 years!"
Note that FECCA has only recently published a paper "Immigration speeds up Australia's rate of aging - FECCA"calling for special funding for aged immigrants because of the way immigration ages the Australian population. Every immigrant comes here older than anyone born here, but this fact is grossly magnified by the effect of bringing dependent adults as extended family here. Between 2011 to 2026 ethnic people over 80 will increase by 59% compared with 29% in the Australian-born population. Continuing high immigration threatens to make this problem unmanagable, with stress on housing, employment, water, food and power supplies undermining democracy, health and life-expectancy.
Ausfis looks very official and could easily be mistaken for an Australian Government website and message, but it isn't. It is a private business composed of people who make money out of processing migration applications. In fact, it does clearly state what it is at the bottom of the page and the agency promotion style seems responsible. It is not doing or saying anything illegal or misleading; it is, indeed, apparently promoting government policy.
Currently immigration to Australia outweighs births over deaths. It is the main source of population growth here.
"Increased migration and fertility (2007–2011)
Source: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/Lookup/2071.0main+features952012-2013
Despite the economic impacts of the global financial crisis which started in 2007 and the ongoing repercussions within global financial markets, Australia experienced strong and sustained population growth throughout the period 2007–2011 (see the graph of Annual population growth above). In 2009, the addition of 394,000 people was the highest single annual increase to Australia's population, and the annual growth rate of 1.8% was unmatched since 1972. Migration was a significant factor in the population growth during this period. For the first time since federation, migration consistently contributed more to population growth than the contribution from natural increase. However, much of this recent increase has come from increased numbers of long-term temporary migrants; those with student, holiday and business visas (for more information see Migration, Australia (cat. no. 3412.0). The effect of this high level of migration can be seen in the 25–29 years age group in 2011, where there were an additional 385,000 people compared with the numbers in this cohort when they were aged 5–9 years in 1991. "
Recent comments