As to the argument from self-interest, it only takes you so far. The evidence shows pretty clearly that countries generally benefit from immigration, just as they benefit from trade. Within a country, of course, there will be both winners and losers, but it’s not obvious that the losers (or perceived losers) from immigration wouldn’t also be losers from trade. Hence my doubts about the long-term prospects of a political strategy that appeals to one but not the other.

I agree that it is inconsistent to promote the free movement of capital, goods (and increasingly services) while being ‘passionately hostile’ to the free movement of people. But there is a long way from passionate hostility to promoting the free movement of people. Denmark took a good step along that way in 1973 when it joined the European Union, which of course now has 1 passport and allows the free movement of people within the Union. A further step worth considering would be to open the EU’s borders to other members of the OECD.

I would be interested in any argument against Australia negotiating a reciprocal open borders agreement with any member of the OECD.

Same chap of course who thinks 14 year olds should be able to vote (e.g. one supposes for death duties on estates which don’t buy-pass children in favour of grandchildren; or to allow marriage without parental consent at 14). It must be lovely to live in that rarefied happy world where one keeps on forgetting the power of self-interest and its versatility. (On voting, why do we want to add the votes of others to dilute the already small power our votes carry? That applies also to giving votes to non-English speaking illiterate over-70 parents of the original immigrants…)

Even the standard racism-free explanation for the enthusiasm of the Labor movement for the old White Australia policy should allow Charles to understand that there are plenty of perfectly rational reasons of self-interest for limiting (not necessarily totally denying) free movement of people while happy that cheap goods are available and capital can be imported to finance the growth of one’s economy. And that’s without going to much wider issues of crime, culture, social integration, net economic cost or contribution and numbers (not least if the numbers, multiplied by a far greater fertility than that of the native population, are - or may be - going to lead to big voting blocks wanting to change society in ways very uncomfortable for the natives).

Free movement as used by Charles has to mean movement largely at the choice of the mover. While most readers of Crikey would probably acknowledge that a clever country is best for 99.999 per cent of all of us and that our ethnic mix is pretty good for that by the standards of everywhere but Japan and Korea (and we have demographic advantages over them too) does Charles really want to open our borders to all who may, on the evidence of who gets smuggled into Europe, or crosses the borders illegally into the US, might volunteer to come to Australia - even without prospects of unemployment benefits, health care in systems already failing in many areas, etc.?