Immigration Restrictions

[brendan]

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?

This is irrelevant. Please tell me how Australia benefits from free migration.

No it isn't. You just don't want to confront the issue of who ought to bear the onus of proof when it comes to government intervention. It's classic status quo bias. Not only that your question ignores the effects on non-Australians.

Again is it:
(1) for the people to prove to the government why the government should not intervene and restrict the free movement of people?; or

(2) for the government or the proponents of government intervention to prove to the people why it should be restricting the free movement of people?

If (1) then the result is that government ought to intervene to restrict people's freedom as they please, unless someone can prove otherwise.

That is just bizarre. Who is doing the intervening here? It is government.

If we take your logic that the onus of proof lies on me to prove why removing government restriction will be more desirable, then taking freedom of information as an example: it is for the people to prove to the government why the government should not hide and keep information secret; rather than it being for the government to prove to the people why it must hide and keep information secret.

And we can keep going until we have exhausted all human affairs for which government might coerce, compel, intervene, restrict, tax and regulate.

Is it for the people to prove to the government why the government ought not coerce, compel, intervene, restrict, tax and regulate? Or is the onus on the government to justify to people why it must coerce, compel, intervene, restrict, tax and regulate ?

[costargh]

Free immigration helps to remove friction in the markets, and helps to improve efficiency overall. Labour shortages and skills shortages that would otherwise require a generation of Australians to be brought up with the necessary skills can be satisfied with a simple plane trip.

Increasing the cap on migration to a point where labour shortages and skills shortages were covered would have the same effect

Where goods and services are significantly cheaper (moreso than the cost of travel), then people will go there. It will help the rate of globalisation increase, which will bring benefits to all corners of the world.

I dont understand this one

Remember that when the domestic labour unions complain about unfair competition, it is to the detriment of every consumer (including Australian ones) who will face the opportunity cost of being unable to purchase a lower priced good or service, all because the self-righteous union believes that your supplier shouldn't be allowed to employ a more competitively priced employee.

I have no problem with this but doesn't constitute a need for free migration, only a higher cap.

[brendan]

Not posting any more in this waste of space

Changed your mind eh?

[Collin Li]

I have no problem with this but doesn't constitute a need for free migration, only a higher cap.

This is where the onus of proof is important. It's not for me to say why there should be free immigration - that is the natural and voluntary process of people who wish to exit and enter.

Instead, it must be shown why governments must regulate it. I accept that there are arguments that justify screening immigrants for previous criminal records, contagious diseases and other public health threats, but there is little to justify the placing of a quota on immigrants.

Remember that each immigrant turned away is an opportunity cost for what the immigrant would offer to Australia in his or her produce and services.

[costargh]

Why does anyone have a divine right to enter and live in Australia as they wish?
Where does it say that people have this right?

[Collin Li]

Where did you get the right?

So you are just like those workers who are worried that foreign competition will oust them of their jobs. A protectionist - one who wishes to serve their own special interests at the expenses of others.

[BA22]

Why does anyone have a divine right to enter and live in Australia as they wish?
Where does it say that people have this right?

Wow costa, its a shame that you truly beleive that

[costargh]

Well isnt that what citizenship is?
Ties us to a country?

[costargh]

Where did you get the right?

So you are just like those workers who are worried that foreign competition will oust them of their jobs. A protectionist - one who wishes to serve their own special interests at the expenses of others.

I got the right because it is written in law that if I am born here I am a citizen of this country.

[BA22]

Well isnt that what citizenship is?
Ties us to a country?

But don't you see the underlying values of your above statement? I would ask the question of why don't people have this right, and the answers you get are not all positive and allude to some of the worst aspects of our humanity

[Collin Li]

So it boils down to culture? Does your national identity justify the blockade of many mutually fruitful trades to be made with potential immigrants?

[costargh]

It doesnt block. It restricts

[Collin Li]

What a pleasant way of telling Australian consumers and foreign competition to get fucked.

[brendan]

Why does anyone have a divine right to enter and live in Australia as they wish?
Where does it say that people have this right?

This is not your own private property we are speaking of here. What right do you have to stop people from entering on property that isnt even yours?

[droodles]

Why does anyone have a divine right to enter and live in Australia as they wish?
Where does it say that people have this right?

where is manner, i cant find it