AHC: Pro-Immigration United States

NZ and Australia were incredibly pro migration and still are (IIRC both countries have around 20% of the population as foreign born residents). We also sponsored migrants at government cost (although that as much speaks to the need to attract people who would otherwise go to say the US or Canada).

You have got to be joking about Australia, if they were so welcoming then Commonwealth Citizens wanting a better life will not have to go on boats and then suffer internment somewhere in the Pacific.

I know about the points system and it is good that they have it but for the likes of India of which 2.5 million risked their lifes to keep Australia safe from the Japanese (if they all fought for land of the rising sun, Australia would be in big trouble) there should be freedom of movement.

It is not like it is a overcrowded country with high unemployment...
 
Actually the best way to have a more Pro-Immigration USA is to have Britain annex Cuba in the SYW and has the sort of Quebec (and Cuba) Act which treats the French and Spanish Speaking Catholics as well as they were treating the Irish. That would get them to join the USA (plus NS) from day one.

With Latinos in the USA from day one and any issues with Catholics weakened and of course more space the butterflies will do the rest to reaching that goal. The only barrier would be how many can the nation cope with (as well as how many are needed).
 
You have got to be joking about Australia, if they were so welcoming then Commonwealth Citizens wanting a better life will not have to go on boats and then suffer internment somewhere in the Pacific.

I know about the points system and it is good that they have it but for the likes of India of which 2.5 million risked their lifes to keep Australia safe from the Japanese (if they all fought for land of the rising sun, Australia would be in big trouble) there should be freedom of movement.

It is not like it is a overcrowded country with high unemployment...

Well, perhaps we need to define terms then.

I mean "pro immigration" in the sense that the practical impact of their policies on migration mean that many of their people are migrants. IIRC their own government plans for around 200,000 legal immigrants or so a year.

You are, of course, right that it doesn't extend to all facets of Australian life. The Boat People issue notably.

But, to go back to broad statistics, Australia seems to have about a quarter (26.5%) of its residents being foreign born as of the last few years, with that percentage increasing from 23.1% in the late 1990s. The main growth areas being non white people from various parts of Asia principally and then Africa.

In any event, the vast majority of those people are not illegal immigrants by anyone's measure.

So to me, I think it quite justifiable that Australia is deemed to be pro migration in the sense that it has historically and to this day encouraged large numbers of people to migrate by its own ruleset.

http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/migrationpopulation.pdf
 
Well, perhaps we need to define terms then.

I mean "pro immigration" in the sense that the practical impact of their policies on migration mean that many of their people are migrants. IIRC their own government plans for around 200,000 legal immigrants or so a year.

You are, of course, right that it doesn't extend to all facets of Australian life. The Boat People issue notably.

But, to go back to broad statistics, Australia seems to have about a quarter (26.5%) of its residents being foreign born as of the last few years, with that percentage increasing from 23.1% in the late 1990s. The main growth areas being non white people from various parts of Asia principally and then Africa.

In any event, the vast majority of those people are not illegal immigrants by anyone's measure.

So to me, I think it quite justifiable that Australia is deemed to be pro migration in the sense that it has historically and to this day encouraged large numbers of people to migrate by its own ruleset.

http://www.aph.gov.au/binaries/library/pubs/bn/sp/migrationpopulation.pdf

I did not say they did not accept large numbers of migrants from all over the world, in fact since WW2 (when they finally ditched the idiotic White Australia policy) that has certainly not been the case, in fact your own report states that it is actually growing again.

However I consider the term to be “Government Policy favours more migration”, when you look at it in that sense (your definition does mean they are “pro- immigration”) then they would be not doing those offshore interment policies they have, especially those that want a better life for themselves.

Besides considering that 27% of Australians were born overseas, it makes this policy even more idiotic, there is no economic reason and there is no racial or religious reason. So what is the point of this policy?

I mean considering their other migration policies which are more welcoming this seem a oddball one…
 
I did not say they did not accept large numbers of migrants from all over the world, in fact since WW2 (when they finally ditched the idiotic White Australia policy) that has certainly not been the case, in fact your own report states that it is actually growing again.

However I consider the term to be “Government Policy favours more migration”, when you look at it in that sense (your definition does mean they are “pro- immigration”) then they would be not doing those offshore interment policies they have, especially those that want a better life for themselves.

Besides considering that 27% of Australians were born overseas, it makes this policy even more idiotic, there is no economic reason and there is no racial or religious reason. So what is the point of this policy?

I mean considering their other migration policies which are more welcoming this seem a oddball one…

Maybe. I'm defining being pro migration narrowly, in that the government wishes for substantive migration under their own rules. The wider definition of being pro migration, where all forms of migration are welcomed, isn't really a political reality anywhere at this point in time. All governments seek to control what happens within their borders and to set rules on issues of public interest and migration is one of those topics.

But I'll concede, both NZ and Australia have always had a very careful and planned approach to migration, being migrant countries. They have always had a clear idea of who they want and why. That is why I sometimes find the UK debate a little odd.
 
Maybe. I'm defining being pro migration narrowly, in that the government wishes for substantive migration under their own rules. The wider definition of being pro migration, where all forms of migration are welcomed, isn't really a political reality anywhere at this point in time. All governments seek to control what happens within their borders and to set rules on issues of public interest and migration is one of those topics.

I am not suggesting that Australia should allow everyone to come, but it should at least accept that considering how much India has done to defend and even develop the nation right up to this say, there should be freedom of movement for Commonwealth Citizens and a more flexible refugee policy.

That is not a unreasonable demand and I would be very keen on not allowing criminals and terrorists to come to Australia from overseas.

But I'll concede, both NZ and Australia have always had a very careful and planned approach to migration, being migrant countries. They have always had a clear idea of who they want and why. That is why I sometimes find the UK debate a little odd.

Would having full control over such a policy and a long history of continued migration be a factor?
 
I am not suggesting that Australia should allow everyone to come, but it should at least accept that considering how much India has done to defend and even develop the nation right up to this say, there should be freedom of movement for Commonwealth Citizens and a more flexible refugee policy.

That is not a unreasonable demand and I would be very keen on not allowing criminals and terrorists to come to Australia from overseas.



Would having full control over such a policy and a long history of continued migration be a factor?

On the latter point, I'd think so. On the other point, well, every country has the right to be silly about its own migration rules.

Australia and New Zealand are naturally going to become more open to Indian migration on current patterns unless international migration suddenly shuts down. India produces huge numbers of useful English speaking graduates now and these people are going to be in demand in both countries. I would imagine in preference to Chinese migrants, if it ever comes to that.
 
I should have stated: more friendly to immigration. As in friendly or at least limited bscklash against Catholics, Chinese, etc immigration.
 
Australia and New Zealand are naturally going to become more open to Indian migration on current patterns unless international migration suddenly shuts down. India produces huge numbers of useful English speaking graduates now and these people are going to be in demand in both countries. I would imagine in preference to Chinese migrants, if it ever comes to that.

I would agree with this based on the reasons you state, however if they are going to do this they better start being more welcome to those migrations they have interned.
 
I should have stated: more friendly to immigration. As in friendly or at least limited bscklash against Catholics, Chinese, etc immigration.

I don't think there's ever been a country in history whose population eagerly embraced large numbers of immigrants from a different culture.

IIRC, Argentina and Chile both explicitly encouraged immigration and did their best to attract Europeans to their countries. So you can put them on the list too.

They needed to do that. The United States didn't. It was a much shorter boat ride from Europe and had a long-established reputation as a good destination for immigrants. It didn't need to "sell itself" much more than that. From 1820 to 2010, over 75 million people immigrated to the United States, more than the combined total populations of Argentina and Chile today.
 
On the latter point, I'd think so. On the other point, well, every country has the right to be silly about its own migration rules.

Australia and New Zealand are naturally going to become more open to Indian migration on current patterns unless international migration suddenly shuts down. India produces huge numbers of useful English speaking graduates now and these people are going to be in demand in both countries. I would imagine in preference to Chinese migrants, if it ever comes to that.

I could see the US becoming a major destination for Chinese immigrants (again), thanks to the established Chinese populations in LA, the Bay Area, and NYC. Just picture it: 30 years from now, latino politicians could be complaining about how the new immigrants don't make an effort to assimilate into American culture.... :p

They needed to do that. The United States didn't. It was a much shorter boat ride from Europe and had a long-established reputation as a good destination for immigrants. It didn't need to "sell itself" much more than that. From 1820 to 2010, over 75 million people immigrated to the United States, more than the combined total populations of Argentina and Chile today.

All I was saying is that Argentina and Chile were more welcoming of immigrants than the US. I never said that they were more successful.

Why it didn't work so well? Argentina has received more immigrants than Canada, Australia and South Africa TOGETHER with much worse economy.
Because of all the economic chaos, military coups, and periodic defaults?
 
Last edited:
Top