Quote:
Originally Posted by never_bluff
You're right I'm not an expert in the economics of migration. But I'm pretty sure things are not quite as simple as the rosy globalization picture you paint. There are political ramifications surrounding foreigners taking jobs from locals because they are willing to do them cheaper.
Well I don't know that I am painting a rozy picture of globalisation, what I do know is that it is the dominant economic culture right now, that's the way the authorities think, the same authorities who are going to deliver your visa.
In any case, the reality is that countries allow targeted immigration for a reason, letting some workers in such as very skilled ones (skill shortage) or very low skilled ones for jobs that aren't paid at a wage that would make it worthwhile for enough locals to pick them all up. Without highly skilled immigration, innovation would be stifled and firms would lose out as the quality of their products would suffer (or they would have to outsource creating high value added economic activity offshore). Without low skilled immigration, wages would need to increase for low skilled jobs and they would quickly disappear either because firms costs would go up and their products would become uncompetitive, or because the job itself would be delocalised offshore. Allowing immigration keeps the jobs onshore.
Again it's not necessarily my opinion nor do I suggest it is the best way of organising your economy or the world economy, it's simply the dominant economic culture at this moment and that's the way most of our governments structure their thinking. That's the reality.
I'm unsure about which exact "political ramifications" you're talking about but I can tell you what the political impact would be if jobs were delocalised en masse or if local firms were to become uncompetitive and needed to lay off people as a result.
Excessive immigration creates well know problems, notably the possibility that the infractrure cannot cope with the arrival of too many migrants (the UK experienced that very problem in the last few years with massive immigration from Eastern Europe). But too little creates problems of its own (not restricted to those outlined above) and Italians would do well to look into this problem before their economy's competitiveness deteriorate any further.
So a policy of targeted immigration which Australia seems to favour judging by 1S1ckPuppy's post seems to make sense. Poker players do not appear to me as being workers that are crucialy needed regardless of the negative image players have amongst the general public.
Hell I'm not even sure a professional poker player would be able to convinced immigration officials that they are winning players (even that is realistically subject to change) and as a result would not put undue pressure on social services there. It wouldn't surprise me if the overwhelming majority of people saw the arrival of a poker player as a case of a problem migrant, let alone trying to convince them that there are any benefits.
Also, I've only glanced through the Australian Immigration and the Visa Bureau websites but I wonder how easy it is to renew your 90 day tourist visa. It could be that leaving the country for a short while and getting straight back in with a new visa (from the foreign embassy of a nearby country) would be a possible way of getting round the immigration problem if you only wanted to stay there for say a year.
Also being from Canada (or generally a rich country) could help convinced the authorities that you are likely to go back to your country after your stay. It could also help you renew your tourist visa (you could tell them you love holidaying in Australia and want to extend your stay).
It also appears they are looking at your finances in certain cases before letting you in or issuing you with a longer visa. If you are winning big style from poker and you have a bit of cash, that could also play in your favour too.
Just some random thoughts.