In Praise of Discrimination

Typically issuing from supposed conservatives: “No one wants to see a change to the non-discriminatory immigration policy that has helped to make Australia what is arguably the world’s most successful immigrant society.” This time it was in The Australian last Thursday. It doesn’t matter who wrote it. It could be from the pen of any number of centre-right commentators. They want to be seen as balanced, not part of the so-called hard (or “far”) right.

It’s funny. We all spend our lives discriminating. In other words, choosing some things and rejecting others. There isn’t a day goes by when we don’t discriminate. Which coffee shop to go to. Which newspaper to buy (that is if we are old). Which beggar’s hat to tip money into. Which seat to take on the bus. Whether or not to accept an invitation. Which street to avoid when walking home. Who to invite and not invite into our homes. Who to marry. Who to invite to our weddings. Which church to attend. On the latter, whenever I have moved I have church shopped. Rejecting those whose services, I think, won’t suit me.

But, apparently, when it comes to inviting people to live in our country we shouldn’t discriminate. Why not? Plenty want to come. Why not chooses the best? Those who will contribute most. Presumably everyone would refuse entry to criminals, terrorists and terrorist sympathisers (the Greens, Albanese, Wong and Burke excepted) and to disabled people. I put that last one in there to make an edgy point. Because, in fact, it is not true if we get our discrimination right, as I will come to.

Multiculturalism as some kind of aimless aim has always been a crock. When it comes to anti-Semites in the mix it is an unmitigated crock. The methodical aim of immigration policy should be to make Australia a secure, pleasant and prosperous country for its citizens. National self-interest and nothing else should inform immigration. Australia first. Compassion can be shown by providing financial and logistical support. Take a lead from philanthropists. They generally stop short of inviting the homeless to live in their mansions.

The criterion for permanent entry to Australia, or for those given tourist visa who will never go home, is simple. Each and every person let in as a permanent resident (from rich listers to economic migrants to refugees to asylum seekers) must show that they will make a net positive contribution to Australia and its people. That they will contribute to the economy not be a drain. And that they will contribute to civic life and the common good, which perforce means not bringing clashing fundamentalist values and old hatreds with them. While this would exclude people whose values are informed by Islam, this is entirely incidental.

And, by the way, it would exclude no one based on their disability. It is always and only based on whether the would-be immigrant would make a positive contribution. Those contributing most would head-up the queue.

Immigration is in the hands of governments and bureaucrats. They are empowered to act on behalf of citizens. They don’t have license to indulge their fancies. They are like letting agents. Their job is not to bring in squatters and ne’er-do-wells to satisfy their sense of social justice. If they want to salve their consciences by all means open their own houses.

As it is, an unholy alliance between both sides of the political aisle has sold the country down the river and landed us with the mess of multiculturalism. And, unfortunately, this mess, unlike most other messes habitually created by governments ,can’t be fixed. It is an insidious, malignant cancer gnawing away social cohesion and shared values. Containing its deleterious symptoms is the only recourse.