STRANGE TIMES

Details in brief:

Topic : “Immigration: should we apply the brakes?”    

Speakers:

Sinclair Davidson (Institute of Public Affairs)

Chuck Berger (Australian Conservation Foundation)

Panel:

• Cam Walker (Friends of the Earth),
• Arthur Dent (formerly known as  Albert Langer )
• Jill Quirk (Sustainable Population, Australia).

Date: Thursday,  August 12

Time: 6:30 – 8pm (with the option of staying on to eat and continue the discussion informally )

Venue:  Dan O’Connell  Hotel  (Function Room),  225 Canning Street, Carlton.

Much more information here:   The Monthly Argument

This should be fun.   Sinclair Davidson will take a strongly pro immigration position against Chuck Berger who will argue that we must limit immigration in the interests of sustainability.

Earlier this year there was an  interesting stoush within the  right wing intelligentsia over immigration,  open borders etc.  It was sparked by two articles in the Autumn edition of   Policy Magazine:

Open the Borders by Chris Berg  and The Risks of High Migration by Bob Birrell.

The  right wing blogosphere responded  and the issues were tossed around for a bit. eg:

Sinclair Davidson at Catalaxy :   Return of the White Australia Policy (April 4) and A Problem called Democracy (April 10) .

Stephen  King  at the Core Economics blog :  Pass the Sushi and Damn the Immigrants

Harry Clark:  Silly Views on Migration and Population Policy (April 5, 2010)

At around the same time we had  Kevin Rudd announcing “Big Australia” and then having to back right off and appoint a Population Minister, followed by his downfall and Julia Gillard announcing that “Australia should not hurtle down the track to a big population“

The green opponents of immigration have tried to distance themselves from the two main political parties –  to  make their position apppear much more open  and cosmopolitan  than it really is,  by talking a lot about how sympathetic they feel toward boat people and calling for Australia to admit generous numbers of refugees.  But the reality is that they are calling for an immigration policy which will keep poor people out.   Chris Berg nailed the underlying hypocrisy  when he wrote:

‘Having a sustainable population implies asylum seekers can come to Australia, but no-one else. You may flee your third world country to Australia if there’s a war on, but not if you’re starving. That, after all, would be bad for the environment”

Having said this,  I should point out Friends of the Earth does recognise the hypocrisy involved and has taken the position that the only way forward is backward.  We should of course allow poor people to come here.  However in order to accommodate them  we will have to agree to cut our own consumption (ie become poorer), live more densely, travel less ( probably mainly by bike) ….. and so on.

Anyway, tomorrow’s debate  should be fun.  I’m looking forward to seeing a REAL argument about sustainability vs progress and growth.

On the sustainability/growth  issue it will be Sinclair Davidson  and Arthur Dent (aka Albert Langer) against Chuck Berger, Cam Walker and Jill Quirk.

On the issue of whether we’d be justified in keeping (most) foreigners (apart from boat people) out, it will be Davidson, Dent and Walker against Berger and Quirk.

On the lurking background  issue of  whether capitalism is the best system possible, it will all be rather  muddled, I suspect.   My guess is that Dent’s position will be relatively clear – it’s NOT (the best) , but in order to move forward we’d better get a real grip on “the problems of socialism” ) ,  Davidson’s will also be clear – it IS (the best) ,  but the ruling class is a mess and should read more von Mises ).  I don’t know about the others – or rather, the incoherence of it all, defies (short) description).