By Will Koulouris

This week in Australia was yet another tumultuous one, as the debate raged on about the government’s stance on immigration, visas, citizenship, Tony Abbott, and why that Stewie Griffin in the flesh shock jock, Alan Jones wants a piece of the Turnbull pie.

But clearly, resoundingly, the main argument is that of immigration. Asylum seekers, refugees, immigrants, good for nothing ne’er do wells, cockroaches, however it is that you choose to view them, the fact of the matter remains; that no matter what policies are enacted to limit and prohibit their entry into Australia, until the world becomes a place that doesn’t create death, suffering, and displacement over who controls pipelines, there will always be more. And they will want to come here.

So this week, this typical kind of week in Australian politics, Malcolm Turnbull announced sweeping so-called changes to the 457 visa system, which he purportedly abolished only to replace it with a split yet incredibly similar program (take that Paul Ryan), and changes to the citizenship process, which as usual were met with shrieking disdain from the left side of politics, and muted “hear hears” from the right.

But in all the changes, in all the pomp and circumstance that surrounded them, the continual left and right narrative shaping and noise, the forgotten parts are the actual end outcomes of our immigration system as a whole, and the end outcomes for those who would be a part of the process.

Quite simply, the immigration, and to some extent migration system as it currently is in Australia is inherently flawed.

Now, you have the hard left who are champing at the bit to completely open up the doors to all and sundry, foregoing any form of thorough security clearances, ignoring the fact that this would inspire many economic refugees, and the people smugglers who facilitate their arrival, and basically lead to poorer outcomes for not only Australia, but the countries from which they arrive.

Why? Because lets take any country from the Middle East as an example, yes, granted, western policies have left a few countries there war torn and ravaged, but as many on the same hard left will tell you, the people who are coming here are good people, doctors, engineers, educated people who just want a better life for themselves.

So would it not stand to reason that by taking the best and brightest out of one country and bringing them to another, it would result in a win for Australia, but by the same token, a loss for their country of origin?

Those same members of the hard, and even close to centre left, would therefore be better served by actually going to these regions, finding the most at risk and in need of assistance individuals, those who are truly suffering at the yolk of “evil” oppressors, be they native or from the West, and bringing them here, rather than draining from the region those who are the best equipped to return some form of normalcy and provide services.

But let’s not forget the right side of the fence, who also manage to get this issue so wrong. Their idea of immigration is having that nice boy Abdul from that trendy little foreign place serving them their mezze plate, but he might have looked for a few too many seconds at their daughter while he put it down.

Or maybe, it’s Ahmed who started working at the construction site down the road, and that bastard took their job, but it isn’t like they could work at this point in time, or bothered applying  because of you know, stress or something, but these bloody so-and-so’s are taking all the jobs from Australians. Bastards.

Forgetting of course, that basically everyone, and I mean everyone, at one point or another came to this country from somewhere else. But for one reason or another, conveniently forget that fact and cite that their culture would be at threat by any form of foreign invasion, or intake.

Now, I won’t get into the culture issue of Australia, as much as it would be very entertaining to do so, but it remains that narratives that are being shaped on both sides by agenda and identity driven politics, and media, and money, are making it incredibly difficult for there to be a resolution that appeases everybody.

If you, or they, or anyone really wanted to have the best possible outcome for everybody in terms of immigration, all you would need to do is take the whole broken situation, and much like a puzzle, put the pieces back together so that everybody who has an issue is sated to the extent that they would be happy with the outcome, along with having the best possible outcome for those that come here. Which, I have conveniently done. So here it is.

First, we categorically deny entry to anyone who comes here via any other means than officially. Harsh you say? But wait. We actively go to countries that have at-risk and oppressed citizenries and find candidates that are good, honest people, that otherwise would lack the means to pay a people smuggler and wish to come to Australia for a new life.

Then, upon arrival, each individual or family is placed in a rural area with a host family, ideally a farm (because it might surprise you to find out, but hopefully it doesn’t, that many people in these countries are quite adept at working the land), where they can then have what I like to call a triple-win scenario.

They will assimilate much faster, in terms of immersion into Australia, they will also then be able to share their culture with their hosts, thus building bridges of understanding with those in rural areas, and finally they will be able to help rural communities with what they are lacking the most, labour.

In my proposal, this would be for a period of two years, after which they would be eligible for citizenship. They would obviously be getting paid by the farmer, which could be subsidized by tax breaks of some sort.

But wait, what about the services? True, these refugees may indeed require specialised services, but this would then only further facilitate the decentralization process that the government is so keen to roll out, while at the same time avoiding situations where you just throw people into certain areas of Sydney, and hope for the best.

Furthermore, we are a country with vast tracts of land, fertile land, so the opportunities to grow these rural communities by providing for small loans, upon the completion of their two years, to allow the newly minted Australians to set up their own businesses, their own lives, would be endless.

And by doing so, there would then be a new Australian family who would be able to “pay it forward”, taking refugees from a country or region different from their own, and thus repeating the process of mutual understanding and assimilation, whilst still being able to share their own culture, and ultimately leading to more tolerant outcomes for everybody.

Why the focus on rural areas?

Well, apart from the fact that it is an easy fix to both the immigration and housing affordability problem in the major centres (well a partial fix), and the fact that the average age of a farmer in Australia is pushing past 60 years old, agriculture isn’t just a sector that requires new blood to keep rural Australia alive, but also to feed those of us who aren’t rushing to get out on the land to feed ourselves.

Whatever side of the fence you sit on, understand this. The narratives that you are fed by politicians and the media aren’t ever going to lead to equitable situations. The irrational left with their progressive and economically unviable nonsense, and the intolerant right with their pitchfork carrying vitriol, both have it wrong.

There is a middle ground to immigration, but to get there, we all need to stop with the garbage that we espouse to make ourselves feel good about ourselves, and get a few likes on facebook, and rather, think about how we can actually help those who are unable to help themselves, and share in what is, our truly lucky country.

Australia, our immigration nation.