|
Yes, but I believe the asylum seeker issue can be viewed in a broader context, that is, the case for generally "open borders". The main reason why Australia, and most governments, pursue a strict immigration policy is to allow the regulation of society. At the time of federation, the two main reforms that the new gov enacted were compulsory arbitrartion (i.e., labour-market regulation) and the white Australia policy. One could not exist without the other, as there would be no point having officially high wages if foreigners came in and worked for "peanuts". Likewise, there would be little point controlling immigration when the poor, less educated people of the world could come in and be domestic servants, greeters, waiters, shoe-shiners etc, at very affordable salaries. That would improve living standards for all. However, with minimum wages, welfare and Soviet health and education systems, these new arrivals would probably find themselves in an unemployment quagmire, with others chipping in, resentfully, for their health, education and basic subsistence. Get rid of the government control (which requires being able to quarantine each nation state from the other) and the argument against "open" migration starts to look somewhat wobbly, in my opinion. Great site by thw way. I was starting to think no libertarians existed in Australia.
| 
