Migration is a hot topic lately, and it has crossed my mind that policies are two-dimensional and binary.

Usually in response to employment needs, refugee situations, or a general more-people-equals-more-GDP policy, migration policy is very simplistic. Numerous different programs, each with its own criteria, and an overarching system for checking if people are bad.

I am willing to suggest that migration policies should be more nuanced and consider other criteria.

Let’s reverse engineer this by looking at which aspects of migration bother the existing populace the most:

Migrant Crime – In Australia right now there is a lot of media focus on crime committed by Somalian youths, especially attacking each other with machetes. While unemployment and other non-migration factors could be part of the problem, the use of machetes is clearly cultural, and maybe the crime is as well. If you look at what crime is like in their homeland, there is clearly a cultural aspect that will remain while they are first generation migrants. A summary says:

Crime in Somalia remains extremely high and multifaceted, driven by armed groups, weak governance, and instability. Violent incidents like murders, robberies, kidnappings, and terrorism dominate, particularly in areas controlled by al-Shabaab

On the flipside, migrants from low-crime lands like Japan are presumably committing far fewer crimes, and especially fewer violent crimes. So one number that contributes to the “should they be allowed in” points system is what crime is like where they come from, using regional data or city data if possible.

Incompatibility with Western Culture – In Australia, those who assimilate easiest are those with the most similar cultures, like NZ, UK, US and Canada. Next easiest are countries that have a predominantly Christian or non-religious culture. And next easiest is where religion is limited to church-going and not deeply ingrained in society, where rejecting the religion means ostracism from the family. Or where genital mutilation, arranged marriages, or child brides are a facet.

So points should be given for cultural similarity, religious similarity (or no religion) and the depth of religion.

Language – Obviously, a migrant will fit in quicker and easier if they know the language, and will grow into their new culture more easily if they understand signage and TV and conversations with locals more easily.

Employment – I would keep this outside of the matrix, along with personal wealth. They should be separate considerations. The matrix should totally revolve around the ability and potential to fit in culturally.

Refugees versus Migrants – I don’t believe that refugees and migrants should be treated the same. Refugees should be chosen based on the extraordinary nature of their situation, combined with the above factors. And their path to citizenship should not be as easy, given that they will be less compatible. Considering that we would hope that their homeland becomes somewhere they can return to one day, then for me one generation, 10-20 years, is how long they should be non-citizens. And in that time, if they return “home”, their refugee status is revoked. Furthermore, if their “home” becomes an okay place to live once more, they will be returned, along with perhaps some funds to help.