Prioritising or restricting immigratioin from countries:
1/ Has the existing migrant population from this country been shown to commit crime at a higher per capita rate than the general population?
2/ Has this population shown persistently poor integration outcomes across a set of objective measures?
3/ Has this population imposed a high lifetime fiscal cost compared to the general population?
If the answer to all these questions is no, then the country, whatever it might be, should be at the top of our priority list from which we accept migrants.
If the answer to one of these is yes, then that country should be prioritised lower.
No migration policy could ever be perfect. But it can and should be guided by sensible principles and dispassionate data. Our policy should not be so foolish as to treat all applicant countries equally when evidence shows that outcomes are not equal. That would be as naive as it dangerous.
The primary goal of our migration policy should be to serve the people of Australia. It should not try to be a demonstration of our boundless compassion. There is nothing compassionate or moral about taking steps that, based on the facts of past experience, will likely invite crime, social dislocation or high fiscal burden into our country.
https://westerndrift.substack.com/p/prioritising-successful-immigrationMost countries from the Middle East, Africa, South Asia would tick all three and so their citizens should be excluded/restrcted/very seriously scrutinised.
NB.Race is not mentioned.