Liberals are keen to take a problem, and then bum an example from abroad to back up whatever solution they’d like to impose. Just fill in the blanks: in _______ they did _______ and it resulted in _______.
Take guns. Liberals say: in Australia they instituted gun control and it resulted in reduced mass shootings.
It’s a nice way to take a complex problem and broad brush a feel good solution over it. It’s almost as lazy as a bunch of House Democrats holding a so-called sit in, in the legislative body they’re already in, while getting fat off of catered meals in between bouts of selfies, social media, and windfall fund raising.
If we’re going to bum off the Australian example when it comes to guns, can we do the same when it comes to immigration?
Australian immigration is quite a bit different than ours. They don’t just take in anybody that shows up. Down under, they pick and choose who they allow in, based on identified shortfalls in their labor market. For example, if Australia is running short on electrical engineers, they let electrical engineers become Australians. However, if they have enough welders and Tony the welder shows up from the Bronx wanting Aussie citizenship, he’s out of luck and would have to wait until they needed welders – or he could go back to the Bronx and train in some other job field Australia had a pressing need to fill.
One might call Australia’s version of immigration an Australia first policy.
Just like the United States, Australia has a problem with migrants showing up illegally. Most often this occurs by boat, given that Australia is surrounded by water. Those that do are placed in detention facilities until they are deported. This includes those who overstay their visas, student and work permits, and so forth. Yes, if Toby McGorkgork’s visa expires and he doesn’t beat feet back to Wisconsin, he can expect a knock on his door and all the horrors liberals think immigration enforcement entails.
True, Australian immigration – like gun control in the US – isn’t a simplistic topic that can be reduced to a rudimentary fill in the blank social equation. All the same, in an America that produces nowhere near the number of scientists and engineers needed – an America where Wayne State University in Michigan is replacing math requirements with diversity education classes – it might make sense to adopt a quota driven immigration policy to ensure our workforce is properly staffed. After all, China graduates more than 200,000 scientists and engineers each year; there’s a reason they just surpassed the United States as having the most supercomputers of any country in the world*. Chances are, bright and sustainable economic futures aren’t going to be tethered to social justice studies.
So if we’re going to look down under for an example of gun control in action, can we look at our own immigration inaction and think about doing as the Australians have done?
* In June 2016 China reportedly had 167 supercomputers in operation compared with 165 for the United States. More importantly, the number of such machines operating in China INCREASED from 12 in June 2008 to the present number. By contrast, the United States had 258 supercomputers in operation as of June 2008, with a steady DROP to 165 as of June 2016.
Image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Baxtersign.jpg; Gerry Considine