Ending Australian Immigration: Start with “Humanitarian” Migrants by James Reed
Following on from the Productivity Commission’s report into immigration, some articles semi-critical of immigration have appeared in the generally “Big Australia” The Australian, September 20, 2016: Judith Sloan, “Winners, Losers in Migrant Economy,” and Nick Cater, “Outdated Multicultural Model Swamps Us.”
By way of background, the Productivity Commission, among other things, was critical of the humanitarian migration scheme. The economic prospects of these type of migrants is poor and even after five years from arrival, employment is lower than the general population, all with a cost of at least $ 3.2 billion per year. The Productivity Commission did not embrace the mantra of “diversity,” but instead felt that a “deterioration in the integration of immigrants would be detrimental to Australia.”
The Productivity Commission, as Sloan points out, found that the economic benefit of immigration to Australia was 7 percent of the gross domestic product over 45 years, “not insignificant, but nothing to write home about.”
On the contrary, as I see it, that figure is not significant, and almost certainly does not realistically consider the costs of immigration, costs which Sloan discusses earlier in the US context. Such costs are social, environmental and economic, but most importantly, the neglected ethnoracial cost for Anglo Saxons of ethnic displacement and genocide. My estimation of the cost of post-World War II immigration is that it is infinitely negative. Even in conventional terms, environmental costs are counted as pluses in orthodox GDP analysis, so growth occurs even when we are having our own graves dug for us. That’s economics, the pseudo-science of Big Business, the theology of our racial death. GDP can increase even if we are literally killing ourselves.
Sloan refers to a forthcoming book by Harvard economist George Borjas, We Wanted Workers: Unraveling the Immigration Narrative. Although Borjas is pro-immigration, he found that the positive economic impact of immigration on the US economy was small, at $ US 8 billion a year. Of course, there were losers from immigration, such as local minorities who had their wages depressed. Thus, immigration in the 1990s led to a transfer of US $ 160 billion each year from workers to employers. The wages of local unskilled workers who had not completed high school were reduced by 5 percent because of Mexican immigration. Big Business, as I see it, thus profited from immigration, and that is why they so passionately support it; because they can get away with it, especially in hiring illegals. Good luck Donald with your great wall.
I interpret all of this as showing the negative consequences of immigration, because I believe that social policy should look first at impacts on the most vulnerable in society, not the rich elites and Big Business. Immigration is just about making the money elites even richer at the cost of producing civilizational-shattering problems, that these elites simply walk away from. The reductionist economic mindset should be cursed, and immigration along with it. In the next civilisation, let’s not have either, including the elites.