The “line” of this blog is that immigration should be SELECTIVE. That means that:
1). A national government should be in control of it. The U.S. and U.K. governments are not but the Australian government has shown that the government of a prosperous Western country can be. Up until its loss of office in 2007, the conservative Howard government had all but eliminated illegal immigration. The present Leftist government has however restarted the flow of illegals by repealing many of the Howard government regulations.

2). Selectivity should be based on “the content of a man’s character, not on the color of his skin”, as MLK said. To expand that a little: Immigrants should only be accepted if they as individuals seem likely to make a positive net contribution to the country. Many “refugees” would fail that test: Muslims and Africans particularly. Educational level should usually be a pretty fair proxy for the individual’s likely value to the receiving country. There will, of course, be exceptions but it is nonetheless unlikely that a person who has not successfully completed High School will make a net positive contribution to a modern Western society.

3). Immigrants should be neither barred NOR ACCEPTED solely because they are of some particular ethnic origin. Blacks are vastly more likely to be criminal than are whites or Chinese, for instance, but some whites and some Chinese are criminal. It is the criminality that should matter, not the race.

4). The above ideas are not particularly blue-sky. They roughly describe the policies of the country where I live — Australia. I am critical of Australian policy only insofar as the “refugee” category for admission is concerned. All governments have tended to admit as refugees many undesirables. It seems to me that more should be required of them before refugees are admitted — for instance a higher level of education or a business background.

5). Perhaps the most amusing assertion in the immigration debate is that high-income countries like the USA and Britain NEED illegal immigrants to do low-paid menial work. “Who will pick our crops?” (etc.) is the cry. How odd it is then that Australians get all the normal services of a modern economy WITHOUT illegal immigrants! Yes: You usually CAN buy a lettuce in Australia for a dollar or thereabouts. And Australia IS a major exporter of primary products.

6). I am a libertarian conservative so I reject the “open door” policy favoured by many libertarians and many Leftists. Both those groups tend to have a love of simplistic generalizations that fail to deal with the complexity of the real world. It seems to me that if a person has the right to say whom he/she will have living with him/her in his/her own house, so a nation has the right to admit to living among them only those individuals whom they choose.

I can be reached on jonjayray@hotmail.com — or leave a comment on any post. Abusive comments will be deleted.

JOHN RAY (M.A.; Ph.D.)

6 Responses to “About”

  1. Dave In OK Says:

    Hello,

    I read the comments and postings on your forum frequently; it gives me an idea of what is going in in the rest of the world. I get so immeshed in the issues here in the States that I need to get away from the fuss for a little while just to get my perspective reset.

    I live in he state of Oklahoma in the USA. As you may know, we’re being swarmed by millions of foreigners who have entered our country outside the regular legal procedures, i.e., ‘illegal aliens’.

    There are people in the States who are trying to have the term “illegal alien” banned and outlawed! So much for our vaunted freedom of speech.

    Any way, we’re being overrun by large numbers of people who are mostly uneducated peasants from Mexico who sneak across our southern border. If you speak up and tell them they need to go back to their own country, they parade in the streets, waving the Mexican flag, and demand ‘rights’ to welfare payments, free education and health care, and generally, to be entitled whatever they want. If you disagree and tell them that they are here illegally, you are called a racist and xenophobe.

    You’d think it would be an easy matter to have these people moved out but, there are large companies here that benefit from hiring the illegal aliens at below prevailing wages. There are liberal political parties and labor unions that believe that they will benefit by enrolling the illegal aliens into their organizations.

    I think we’re geting close to a national fight with more than just words.

    When I get really frustrated, there is a quote from American President Theodore Roosevelt that I like to repeat :

    “The man who loves other countries as much as his own stands on a level with the man who loves other women as much as he loves his own wife.”

    Of course, the liberals ignore it, or call me more names but, it does make me feel that I have company in the struggle.

    Best of luck to you in Australia; we’re going to hell in a handbasket here.

    Regards,
    Dave in Oklahoma

  2. uk visa Says:

    Hi Dave
    Not sure this is the best place to pass this on but thought you might enjoy it:
    http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2008/04/27/irelands-immigration-party-needs-to-draw-up-a-guest-list
    Best regards

  3. david Says:

    Hello, a link to your blog was automatically generated on a post I just wrote, and I’ll try to remain civil though I find much of what you’ve written/posted to be personally offensive (even though it would seem that you do not intend for it to be), but maybe it’s just the Ann Coulter garbage.

    Regardless, I’m a Chinese-American, the grandchild of legal immigrants on one side (and somewhat “illegal” on the other- mostly because of discrimination like the Chinese Exclusion Act), all of whom probably would not have met your suggested “educational requirements” for access to the US. And yet, my grandparents endured much to put my parents through college, and in turn my parents have enabled me to succeed. I pay my taxes, I speak English, and I’d like to think that the Ph.D. I’m completing will contribute positively to society.

    Unfortunately, I think “immigration analysis” is often done with a cold, distant rationalism that focuses on all the “bad apples” and problematic issues without highlighting the positive ways immigrants have contributed to society. My wife immigrated to the US as a child and we know of countless “immigrant” families who are “contributing” in ways the privileged, “educated,” hegemonic white culture will never understand or appreciate. But that’s okay, they’re not bitter about it- they’re just keeping their heads down and trying to make it.

    My point is that immigrants are people, too- names, faces, and stories- not just some anonymous “problem” to deal with. Several of my close friends work in refugee resettlement and I happen to live in a diverse neighborhood with a high percentage of resettled refugees who are certainly viewed as the “underclass” of American society. These “Muslims and Africans” as you call them are my friends and neighbors, and their families are contributing as well, not just leeching off the system as is often purported by the elite. They face an incredibly difficult uphill battle to succeed, but their children and children’s children will benefit from it.

    And you and I, in turn, will be deeper and richer as a diverse multicultural society because of them. Yes, not everyone “makes it” and some get into trouble, many times because the odds are stacked against them. But let’s not lose our compassion and sense of social justice in our fear and close-mindedness towards the immigrants. I cannot speak for Australia, but the US was, is, and will always be a nation of immigrants. The sooner we acknowledge that reality and recognize the benefits of embracing it, the sooner we’ll be able to right the socioeconomic problems that divide us.

    Thanks for listening.

    1. Bryn Says:

      “My wife immigrated to the US as a child and we know of countless “immigrant” families who are “contributing” in ways the privileged, “educated,” hegemonic white culture will never understand or appreciate…”

      Wow, sounds like ye olde reverse racism to me! I react to such tritely smug comments as an American woman whose British ancestors on both sides of my family built the backbone and foundation of the USA long before the onset of the American Revolution.

      No matter how much fast- track “affirmative action” policies the US Leftist government agencies offer to “minorities,” it will never be enough. That’s because people with the mindset of David assume that my generations of British ancestors had life easy while they were busy clearing forests and building strong families within a nation solely by their own raw muscle and courage — not to mention fighting in wars like World War Two. David’s comments are even more pathetic considering that a Chinese accusing a “Western White” of racism is a bit like the “pot calling the kettle black.” Why doesn’t David go back to China and try foisting his neighborhood “diversity” and free welfare-goodies, “affirmative action” policy there? (And yes, David, I have lived and worked in China.)

  4. ImmOpp Says:

    David,

    I have to disagree with you even though I am a fan of Asian culture and do Asian-based meditation. I will however make it brief. You speak of compassion and immigrants being “people too”: But what about the millions of Americans (25 million by some estimates) who have fallen off the job lists and into non-documented statistical obsurity because they cannot compete with low-wage immigrants or even higher-wage immigrants? I see no compassion for them coming from you or recognition that these people are human, in need of work to survive and for self-respect. I suggest rather than the native-born of any country have first right to jobs and that this be made a constitutional right. As to the Chinese Exclusion Act, wasn’t that motivated in large part because low-wage Chinese immigrants undercut American jobs and wages at that time? I also don’t believe that diversity is necessarily good or even the highest good, which is spiritual, though I am against narrow-mindedness also. The U.S. does not need to be particularly diverse in order to survive and prosper; it has done well in the past otherwise. How would you like it if Taiwan or China were flooded with hundreds of millions of Indians, Vietnamese, Africans, Europeans and others? I think you would change your tune. You probably apply different standards to others (us) than you do yourself.

  5. Invig Says:

    Via Grods, this is my comment. I agree (somewhat) with your intent, but I think it misses global ramifications (meaning we have to do what is possible for other countries to develop) and also the value of character as opposed to education. The two are NOT dependent, and I do not think we actually WANT highly-educated drones filling our society. I know these people made the university a dead social environment, split between the aussies and immigrants – who were from elites (and therefore arrogant) or their middle classes (and therefore cowed) – meaning there was very little value in us mixing with them. Call that ‘character’?!?

    ———————-

    My opinion is:

    a) We should not take people who have been invested in by their own countries’ education system. A few years work experience, sure – but nothing permanent.

    b) Neither should we so easily offer citizenship to those we educate. The middle classes in those nations should be forced to push their own politicians for a better life; not see their children as an easy escape. This goes even more for the children of the elites.

    c) We should have a program to take those excluded by their own nations, but who have the potential to become good citizens. To add their own knowledge, not just regurgitate poor copies of Western degrees. America prospered from this approach.

    d) We should take all boat people and properly assess them as refugees, pursuant to c).

    e) We should be very careful taking ’sympathy’ individuals without any proper upbringing. From broken and scarred communities. We are much better helping such people in situ rather than adding to their distress by removing them from their own culture.

    Point being: ‘active’ refugees are self selecting. They are ready to chance a new future. It is in the worst communist tradition to choose ’sympathy’ refugees who do not have the internal strength to prosper in a strange place.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s