Immigration Restrictions

[Mao]

It’s hard to rile up people to hate kids. It’s easy to get them to hate foreigners... If it were really welfare that concerned them they’d spend more time lobbying for government restrictions on giving birth. I would be curious though, to see exactly where they would build the wall to prevent reproduction."[/i]

Hahahaa!
so true

[brendan]

It is not in our interests to force housing prices up by increasing our population dramatically through migration.

Who is "our"? If that were true I think home-owners would disagree.

It is not in my interest to have people compete with me in the labour market for finance positions. But does that mean the government ought to come in to stop them from competing with me?

What right does anyone have to be free from the competition of others? There are some complaints that in costargh's words, i would naturally reply that "I simply don't give a shit." The self-serving, self-interested complaints made to government for protection against competition are of this group.

But that equilibrium would be such that the standard of living would be lower than it is now, which is something that we want to avoid.

Who's standard of living?

Show me a shred of evidence that suggests that overall the standard of living taking into account the welfare of immigrants as well, has decreased overall.

Even if you only take into account the welfare of only Australians and completely ignore the welfare of non-Australians as if they were non-existent or subhuman creatures, even if you go down that path, all the empirical evidence still says that overall Australians benefit from increased immigration.

[mark_alec]

Who is "our"? If that were true I think home-owners would disagree.

'Our' is the people of Australia. And while some home-owners would like the price increase, a dramatic increase is not going to be beneficial to society as a whole.

Who's standard of living?

Obviously ours. Do you really need to ask this question?

Show me a shred of evidence that suggests that overall the standard of living taking into account the welfare of immigrants as well, has decreased overall.

I never claimed that. But you cannot deny that the standard of living for Australians would be less. And considering the Australian Government should serve Australians (amazing idea isn't it), it seems that they should serve Australia's interests first.

Even if you only take into account the welfare of only Australians and completely ignore the welfare of non-Australians as if they were non-existent or subhuman creatures...

Thanks for trying to make out that I am a racist, I really appreciate it.

...even if you go down that path, all the empirical evidence still says that overall Australians benefit from increased immigration.

What evidence? As midas_touch pointed out, we cannot accommodate hundreds of thousands or millions of new people in our country. Also note that an increase to migration does not imply 'free migration'.

[brendan]

"'Our' is the people of Australia."

So when assessing the desirability of a particular police you take into account only Australians and completely ignore the welfare of non-Australians.
If the world population is 6700 million, and the number of people of Australian nationality is approx 21 million, then you are asking us to ignore the effects of government policy on potentially 6679 million people. If we take that sort of social welfare function, then why not also steal from foreigners? Who cares right? "They" don't matter, what matters is "our people".

"Thanks for trying to make out that I am a racist, I really appreciate it."

You are asking us to adopt a sort of moral calculus that values the welfare of only those people who happen to be of Australian nationality. How is your nationality any less morally arbitary than the color of your skin?


"But you cannot deny that the standard of living for Australians would be less."
I did. Where is the evidence that shows that the standard of living for Australians would be less? All the evidence points the other way.

Even then lets suppose this wild assumption of yours were true.

What right does anyone have to be free from the competition of others? There are some complaints that in costargh's words, i would naturally reply that "I simply don't give a shit." The self-serving, self-interested complaints made to government for protection against competition are of this group.

"increase to migration does not imply 'free migration'."

Of course not but are you not working under the assumption that "free imigration" leads to increased immigration?

"we cannot accommodate hundreds of thousands or millions of new people in our country. "

Who is "we" and why not? Why would there be millions of new people? Even if there were - over what time frame?

Someone else has already formulated a good reply to that misconception:

http://fora.tv/2008/04/24/Gibril_Faal_on_Migratory_Equilibrium
"Gibril Faal argues that the fear of uncontrolled influx of immigrants with open borders is unfounded because a sustainable equilibrium will be reached naturally."

[mark_alec]

then why not also steal from foreigners? Who cares right? "They" don't matter, what matters is "our people".

Ah, but stealing conflicts with our moral code. But isn't the welfare of others important? Yes it is, but not when it is to the detriment of yourself. Doesn't stop us from doing it though (look Nauru's oil.)

All the evidence points the other way.

Please supply said evidence that life would be better for Australians (who already live here) if we had free migration.

Who is "we" and why not? Why would there be millions of new people? Even if there were - over what time frame?

I would expect you could work out that 'we' is Australia, since that has been my stance. There could be millions of people because 1) there are millions of refugees or other suffering people in the world 2) Australia is much better than where they are. The time frame is a few years, not decades or centuries.

Someone else has already formulated a good reply to that misconception:
http://fora.tv/2008/04/24/Gibril_Faal_on_Migratory_Equilibrium

Wait wait wait. A four minute (lots of which isn't relevant or content rich) speech at a university's union comprises of a good reply? A good reply would be a journal article in a reputable publication.

[brendan]

"but stealing conflicts with our moral code."

And stealing a person's right to move doesn't? Stealing a person's freedom to earn a living in another country doesn't?

"isn't the welfare of others important? Yes it is, but not when it is to the detriment of yourself."

But that is there in every case of stealing. If you stop stealing you are forgoing a benefit that you would have received had you continued to steal. But does that make stealing right?

"Please supply said evidence that life would be better for Australians (who already live here) if we had free migration."

Who bears the onus of proof?

Is it for the people to prove to the government why the government should not intervene and restrict the free movement of people?

Or rather is it for the government to prove to the people why it should be restricting the free movement of people?

Even then, my argument against restrictions on immigration doesn't fundamentally rest on that point. Let's even suppose it was false. It is still no argument: as by imposing restrictions on immigration, you are stealing their right to freedom of movement, and their opportunity to earn a living in another country. The difference with your argument is that it does fundamentally rest on that point.

"Wait wait wait. A four minute (lots of which isn't relevant or content rich) speech at a university's union comprises of a good reply? A good reply would be a journal article in a reputable publication."

the title of the video was "migratory equilibrium"

Even then, how is your nationality any less morally arbitrary than the color of your skin?

This idea that when assessing the desirability of certain government policies, that we ought to ignore the effects on potentially millions of people, for no other reason than because of their nationality, is just plain ugly. And it's ugly like racism is ugly.

It's also most ironic that the welfare state has been used as a rationalization for restricting one of the world's greatest anti-poverty, anti-persecution, anti-tyranny tools of all: immigration.

[mark_alec]

Who bears the onus of proof?

You do, because you state All the evidence points the other way.

the title of the video was "migratory equilibrium"

Wow, giving the title now makes it sooooooo much more enlightening.

Even then, how is your nationality any less morally arbitrary than the color of your skin?

Because society exists to serve itself. The Australian government exists to serve Australia.

And it's ugly like racism is ugly.

But it is not racism.

[brendan]

You do, because you state All the evidence points the other way.

and you stated this:

the standard of living for Australians would be less.

Is it for the people to prove to the government why the government should not intervene and restrict the free movement of people?

Or rather is it for the government or the proponents of government intervention to prove to the people why it should be restricting the free movement of people?

To suggest that I bear the onus of proof is to imply that government ought to intervene to restrict people's freedom as they please, unless someone can prove otherwise.

Because society exists to serve itself. The Australian government exists to serve Australia.

Serve how? By stealing other people's freedom of movement and opportunity at their expense? Why doesn't the welfare and the infringement of the freedom of non-Australians come into the equation when assessing the desirability of particular policies?

Even then your how is that even a reply to my question?
1. The Australian government exists to serve Australia
therefore
2. your nationality is less morally arbitrary than the color of your skin

wth?

But it is not racism.

I didn't say it was racism. I said it that it is ugly like racism is ugly. If we take your rhetoric and replace Australian with "white" and non-Australian/foreigner with "black", there there is no difference. But as you will reply "but it's not racism". To that i will say:

How is your nationality any less morally arbitrary than the color of your skin?

[brendan]

HE MUST BE RIGHT BECAUSE HE IS BRENDAN

I agree with you costargh, it's a useful to remember that: just because I said it, doesn't mean I am always right 100% of the time, never wrong, always impartial, logical, consistent, and coherent.

[ingramjack48]

this article is about baby bonus and not IMMIGRATION .... right?

[Glockmeister]

You do, because you state All the evidence points the other way.

and you stated this:

the standard of living for Australians would be less.

Is it for the people to prove to the government why the government should not intervene and restrict the free movement of people?

Or rather is it for the government or the proponents of government intervention to prove to the people why it should be restricting the free movement of people?

To suggest that I bear the onus of proof is to imply that government ought to intervene to restrict people's freedom as they please, unless someone can prove otherwise.

Not trying to debate the topic itself (not informed enough), but...

Under the rules of logic, it is logically fallacious to make a claim and then either:

- Not back it up with some sort of evidence
- Tell the opposition to prove it rather than themselves
- Saying that it is true because it hasn't been proved false (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

To put simply, the onus is on both of you to supply evidence (thought academic citations, books, websites etc.) to justify your position.

So start Googling.

[Mao]

Not trying to debate the topic itself (not informed enough), but...

Under the rules of logic, it is logically fallacious to make a claim and then either:

- Not back it up with some sort of evidence
- Tell the opposition to prove it rather than themselves
- Saying that it is true because it hasn't been proved false (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

To put simply, the onus is on both of you to supply evidence (thought academic citations, books, websites etc.) to justify your position.

So start Googling.

tsk, you are not understanding brendan's position: he's not arguing his point here. he's just pointing out the incoherency in other's arguments. hence is why he doesnt put forward his own stance [because of whatever reason], and people dislike him for this.


- Not back it up with some sort of evidence
   -> that onus is on the person claiming things [you can evidently tell who is not claiming here]

- Tell the opposition to prove it rather than themselves
   -> the onus is not on me to prove what someone else says, if they claim something, they prove it. [see above]

- Saying that it is true because it hasn't been proved false (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
   -> but the possibility of it being true (and) false cannot be ruled out. [how is this relevant?]

[mark_alec]

I thought it was pretty damn obvious why many more people sucks for Australia.

We have limited resources.
We can only accommodate a small change in population per year.
If free migration would cause a massive increase in migration then...
There would be less resources to go around,
Hence the quality of life would deteriorate.

[brendan]

the onus is on both of you to supply evidence (thought academic citations, books, websites etc.) to justify your position.

I've already discussed where the onus of proof falls

Is it for the people to prove to the government why the government should not intervene and restrict the free movement of people?

Or rather is it for the government or the proponents of government intervention to prove to the people why it should be restricting the free movement of people?

To suggest that I bear the onus of proof is to imply that government ought to intervene to restrict people's freedom as they please, unless someone can prove otherwise.

We have limited resources.
We can only accommodate a small change in population per year.
If free migration would cause a massive increase in migration then...
There would be less resources to go around,
Hence the quality of life would deteriorate.

That is the displays a great lack of knowledge of economics. There is fundamental misunderstanding of how the wealth of nations is built. Goods and services can be imported and exported from overseas, and its supply is not forever fixed, it can go up and down. Look at Hong Kong, what natural resources do they have? What builds the wealth is your productivity, it is how well you utilize resources, and those resources don't even have to be your own, they could be someone else's resources, someone else's capital, someone else's labour, someone else's land.

Even then, if we take the logic of your argument, Australia's population has been increasing for decades, so why haven't we seen a decrease in the standard of living?

1. We have limited resources.
2. The population has been increasing
3. There would be less resources to go around,
4. Hence the quality of life would deteriorate.

Oh wait but 4 didn't actually happen in real life

What about the world as a whole? Same situation

1. We have limited resources.
2. The world population has been increasing
3. There would be less resources to go around,
4. Hence the quality of life would deteriorate.

But 4 didn't actually happen in real life.

Even after all of this, lets suppose all ur nonsense was true. It is still the case that you show a complete disregard for the welfare of non-Australians in assessing particular policies. You ignore their welfare and their freedom as if they don't even exist.

If it's OK to enrich ourselves by denying foreigners the right freedom of movement and the opportunity to earn a living elsewhere, why not enrich ourselves by invading foreign countries and seizing their assets and wealth? Most of us don't think that's a good idea, and not just because it might backfire. We don't think it's a good idea because we believe human beings have rights by simple fact that they are human, whatever their color, wherever they live, and whatever nationality. Stealing assets is wrong, and so is stealing the right freedom of movement and to earn a living, no matter where the victim was born.

[Glockmeister]

Not trying to debate the topic itself (not informed enough), but...

Under the rules of logic, it is logically fallacious to make a claim and then either:

- Not back it up with some sort of evidence
- Tell the opposition to prove it rather than themselves
- Saying that it is true because it hasn't been proved false (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

To put simply, the onus is on both of you to supply evidence (thought academic citations, books, websites etc.) to justify your position.

So start Googling.

tsk, you are not understanding brendan's position: he's not arguing his point here. he's just pointing out the incoherency in other's arguments. hence is why he doesnt put forward his own stance [because of whatever reason], and people dislike him for this.


- Not back it up with some sort of evidence
   -> that onus is on the person claiming things [you can evidently tell who is not claiming here]

- Tell the opposition to prove it rather than themselves
   -> the onus is not on me to prove what someone else says, if they claim something, they prove it. [see above]

- Saying that it is true because it hasn't been proved false (argumentum ad ignorantiam)
   -> but the possibility of it being true (and) false cannot be ruled out. [how is this relevant?]

After re-reading the post, yeah I've basically paraphrased that Brendan said to Mark, so what I wrote should be addressed to Mark, and not Brendan (blame it on posting it at like midnight).

That said, I'll like to address the last point. No claim can be true and false at the same time. Ever. Saying so leads to postmodernism and you don't want to go there.